On Thursday 26 January 2006 19:53, Mike Frysinger wrote: > On Thursday 26 January 2006 11:06, Paul de Vrieze wrote: > > On Thursday 26 January 2006 14:51, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > > On Thursday 26 January 2006 05:43, Paul de Vrieze wrote: > > > > Another candidate would be the strip binary which might be called > > > > by certain makefiles instead of being portage controlled. > > > > > > packages should never strip, only portage should > > > > ebuilds don't, some makefiles do. > > exactly, thus i said "packages" and not "ebuilds"
Btw. I do agree with you that they shouldn't. > > > Sometimes when calling the strip option > > of install. A strip wrapper prevents this broken behaviour once and for > > all. It could even be written to show a big fat warning. > > i know ... it isnt uncommon to see like `install -s` or `$(STRIP)` in > packages and those need to be removed > > while this is a neat idea (catching those people who do `install -s`), i'm > not sure it'd work as there isnt a clean way to detect whether it's the > package calling `strip` or the ebuild/portage ... you could try passing > info via an env var, but that's no fun :) Well, portage uses prepstrip to do stripping. As such this prepstrip script could take care not to use the wrong strip binary. Shouldn't be hard to do even without hardcoding the path to the strip binary. For ebuilds calling strip, I see no reason why they would. If at some point it is found necessary, it would be easy to have an estrip command to do this. Paul -- Paul de Vrieze Gentoo Developer Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net
pgpkylsceaXOL.pgp
Description: PGP signature
