[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: install-strip variant that strips then installs?

From: Gavin Smith
Subject: Re: install-strip variant that strips then installs?
Date: Sun, 12 May 2013 15:56:13 +0100

On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 5:12 PM, Rhys Ulerich <address@hidden> wrote:
> I gather that 'make install-strip' installs and then strips binaries.
> Is there some variant that reverses the order?  If not, any
> recommendations for how to write one in an Automake-compliant manner?
> My unstripped binaries are absurdly large and my installation
> directory is NFS-mounted.  So I get to pay lots of network overhead to
> install what eventually becomes O(100MB) of binaries because the
> unstripped copy is O(1.5GB).
> Thanks,
> Rhys

This seems like a good idea to me. Is there any reason why the order
couldn't be reversed?

The only problem I can think of is that make install-strip isn't
expected to modify the binaries in the build directory, and the user
might conceivably be relying on them being unstripped (for some
obscure reason). If that could be a problem, perhaps a solution is to
have a separate "strip" rule which could be run.

You could try writing a rule yourself in your to strip the
binaries. You could use the bin_PROGRAMS make variable that is set in
the output Makefile.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]