Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2017 20:54:32 +0200 From: Tijl Coosemans <tijl@FreeBSD.org> To: Gerald Pfeifer <gerald@pfeifer.com> Cc: ports@FreeBSD.org, Martin Wilke <miwi@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: INSTALL_TARGET=install-strip runs into "permission denied" Message-ID: <20170425205432.4eb2b02a@kalimero.tijl.coosemans.org> In-Reply-To: <alpine.LSU.2.21.1704242101550.2928@anthias.pfeifer.com> References: <alpine.LSU.2.11.1501181210570.2527@tuna.site> <20150118130127.71b8cba9@kalimero.tijl.coosemans.org> <alpine.LSU.2.11.1501182140060.2527@tuna.site> <20150119092404.0a448f9f@kalimero.tijl.coosemans.org> <alpine.LSU.2.21.1704222137060.2928@anthias.pfeifer.com> <20170423123757.5f111189@kalimero.tijl.coosemans.org> <alpine.LSU.2.21.1704242101550.2928@anthias.pfeifer.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 24 Apr 2017 21:03:22 +0200 (CEST) Gerald Pfeifer <gerald@pfeifer.com> wrote: > On Sun, 23 Apr 2017, Tijl Coosemans wrote: >>> [ https://reviews.freebsd.org/D10357 ] >> Yes, but in my opinion we should stop relying on upstream build systems >> to get stripping right and let bsd.port.mk strip ELF files after staging. >> It's less work for maintainers. Then instead of stripping, bsd.port.mk >> could also extract debug symbols into separate files and put them into a >> debug subpackage. > > Yes, that sounds a lot more reliable and maintainable (and overall > less work compared to patching hundreds of ports). > > Until something like this is in place, should we ignore those > complaints from the QA framework or patch individual ports? That's not my decision to make. It's not that important for gcc I think. The only reason to strip files is to make them a bit smaller and gcc is not going to be installed on space constrained systems where this matters.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20170425205432.4eb2b02a>