compile with no prefix

compile with no prefix

[George Neill]

Hi,

  Is it possible to configure/build gcc with no prefix?  I'd like to
build a version which I can tarball up and drop anywhere on the
filesystem.

TIA,
George.

Re: compile with no prefix

[Ian Lance Taylor]

"George Neill" <georgen@neillnet.com> writes:

>   Is it possible to configure/build gcc with no prefix?  I'd like to
> build a version which I can tarball up and drop anywhere on the
> filesystem.

You should always configure it with a prefix.  But if you wrap up the
whole directory structure under that prefix and put it somewhere else,
gcc will still be able to run and to find its supporting programs.

(This only works for sufficiently recent versions of gcc--I think it
works for any 4.x release.)

Ian

Re: compile with no prefix

[George Neill]

Ian,

>  You should always configure it with a prefix.  But if you wrap up the
>  whole directory structure under that prefix and put it somewhere else,
>  gcc will still be able to run and to find its supporting programs.

Thanks, maybe someone on the list could help give guidance on the
following thread
(http://forum.java.sun.com/thread.jspa?threadID=5277589) ?

Recently. I have learned ...

make DESTDIR=/path/to/some/install/dir install

Is this preferred now-a-days over --prefix= ?

Later,
George.

Re: compile with no prefix

[NightStrike]

On 3/29/08, Ian Lance Taylor <iant@google.com> wrote:
> "George Neill" <georgen@neillnet.com> writes:
>
> >   Is it possible to configure/build gcc with no prefix?  I'd like to
> > build a version which I can tarball up and drop anywhere on the
> > filesystem.
>
> You should always configure it with a prefix.  But if you wrap up the
> whole directory structure under that prefix and put it somewhere else,
> gcc will still be able to run and to find its supporting programs.

The documentation should be updated in the --with-[build-]sysroot
section.  It claims that there's only a specific way to have a
relocatable tree.  I have found as you say that the installation
prefix is very easily relocatable, contrary to the documentation.

Re: compile with no prefix

[Tim Prince]

George Neill wrote:
> Ian,
> 
>>  You should always configure it with a prefix.  But if you wrap up the
>>  whole directory structure under that prefix and put it somewhere else,
>>  gcc will still be able to run and to find its supporting programs.
> 
> Thanks, maybe someone on the list could help give guidance on the
> following thread
> (http://forum.java.sun.com/thread.jspa?threadID=5277589) ?
> 
> Recently. I have learned ...
> 
> make DESTDIR=/path/to/some/install/dir install
> 
> Is this preferred now-a-days over --prefix= ?

--prefix isn't supported for the mpfr build on x86-64, except possibly for 
Ubuntu and Debian.  As you snipped so aggressively, I don't know if that 
might be an issue.  I haven't seen an explanation of whether maintainers 
of packages other than mpfr have that "preference."

Re: compile with no prefix

[George Neill]

Tim,

>  --prefix isn't supported for the mpfr build on x86-64, except possibly for
>  Ubuntu and Debian.  As you snipped so aggressively, I don't know if that
>  might be an issue.  I haven't seen an explanation of whether maintainers
>  of packages other than mpfr have that "preference."

I apologize for snipping so agressively.  I am only referring to
compiling/installing GCC 4.2 on Solaris 10 (SPARC).  I should have
made that clear.  http://gcc.gnu.org/install/finalinstall.html is
where I learned of the DESTDIR jail installation.

Thanks,
George.