On May 28, 2001, "Maciej W. Rozycki" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I was thinking of a configure-time check if `install -s' works.
I'm not sure I'd trust such a check. I'm pretty sure it might be
possible to construct situations in strip would succeed in stripping a
certain simple program for a
On May 28, 2001, "Maciej W. Rozycki" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 26 May 2001, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> > Note that I'm writing of a performance. Install-sh is a serious
>> > performance hit for non-trivial installs.
>>
>> How about only use install-sh for install-strip on cross builds?
>
On May 28, 2001, Tom Tromey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've noticed that if you try to build a texi file that has an error
> you get a warning from the `missing' program:
Presumably missing should check, when the execution of a program
fails, whether the program can be found in the PATH or not
On 26 May 2001, Tom Tromey wrote:
> Here in automake-land, we've long considered this the primary
> approach, with install-strip secondary. My recollection is that
> install-strip was added to the standards by RMS because he didn't want
> to add INSTALL_SCRIPT. In those days François advocated
On 28 May 2001, Alexandre Duret-Lutz wrote:
> Although i initially suggested it, there is another
> install-strip approach that we completly forgot: install
> binaries using the system's install, and strip them afterward.
I haven't forgotten, actually. I just consider it unsafe. What if
INSTA
On 26 May 2001, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> > Note that I'm writing of a performance. Install-sh is a serious
> > performance hit for non-trivial installs.
>
> How about only use install-sh for install-strip on cross builds?
Well, that actually handles one half of the problem (yes, I do cross
b
On 26 May 2001, Tom Tromey wrote:
> If there is a case I've missed I am willing to address it. But I
> don't see one right now. Do you have a concrete bug produced by the
> current code?
I've checked a snapshot taken at night today and it's fine. Thanks a
lot.
--
+ Maciej W. Rozycki, Tec
I've noticed that if you try to build a texi file that has an error
you get a warning from the `missing' program:
cd ../automake \
&& /bin/sh /x2/egcs-stuff/automake/automake/lib/missing --run makeinfo `echo
../automake/automake.texi | sed 's,.*/,,'`
./automake.texi:1675: Next field of node `A
Ladies & Gentlemen,
Are you ready to the experience of a lifetime ?
As affiliates of the CIL group, we offer you to PLUGIN to the largest SEX-SERVER on
the WEB, in order to get more than 3000 MegaBytes of the best and most sensational SEX
on the entire Web!
Why on earth do you think that tho
>>> "Alexandre" == Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Alexandre> On May 26, 2001, Tom Tromey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> "Alexandre" == Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> Note that I'm writing of a performance. Install-sh is a serious
>>> performance hit for non-tr
>>> "Tom" == Tom Tromey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
Tom> I agree that having install-strip work efficiently is important.
Tom> However I don't believe that it is more important than (1) getting 1.5
Tom> out in a timely way (though I don't believe this will derail it either
Tom> way), o
11 matches
Mail list logo
