Re: minimum installation query

[<pl...@pi...>]

On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 21:52:07 +0100, Ethan A Merritt  =

<merritt@u.washington.edu> wrote:

> On Monday 21 January 2008 07:25, pl...@pi... wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I am trying to build a minimum sized installation for use on an arm S=
BC
>> using crosstools on debian 3.1
>>
>> Mostly it seems to be going perfectly but I have a couple of hitches.=

>>
>> Firstly gnuplot.gih is about half a meg that I could do without. It's=

>> addind about 25% to the foot print and will be totally useless on the=

>> headless target. Is there (or should there be) a means to take this o=
ut  =

>> of
>> the build options?
>>
>> I could of course just delete it but that's a hack and I dont know if=
 it
>> will cause a failure at runtime.
>
> You can test the effect for yourself easily. Just delete the file.
> It causes a non-fatal error message at runtime if you type "help":
> /usr/local/share/gnuplot/4.3/gnuplot.gih: No such file or directory
>
> gnuplot.gih compresses by about a factor of about 4X using gzip.
> Perhaps it would be worth tweaking the code to uncompress dynamically?=

>
>> Also it appears not to get built by `make`
>
> It is normally. I don't know what you may have tweaked in the Makefile=
.

No, I have not touched the makefile . I'll update to cvs and check again=
.

>
>> but during `make install` it
>> seems to be detected as missing and an attempt is made to build it. T=
his
>> suggests an error in the make files.
>
> No. That is correct behavior.  "make install" is a superset of "make  =

> all".
> If it detects that a component hasn't been made, it will do that first=
.
>

I realise that , I was meaning it seemed there was an error in that it w=
as  =

not getting caught my make itself. This have been missed if it got picke=
d  =

up by make install. I'll report back if it still does on clean cvs.


>> /bin/sh: line 1: arm-linux-gcc: command not found
>> make[2]: *** [alloc.o] Error 127
>> make[2]: Leaving directory `/home/prof/tmp/gnuplot/src'
>> make[1]: *** [install-recursive] Error 1
>> make[1]: Leaving directory `/home/prof/tmp/gnuplot/src'
>> make: *** [install-recursive] Error 1
>>
>>
>> This error is coming to light since root does not have the cross  =

>> compiler
>> in its path.
>
> [shrug] If you don't want to have it in the path permanently, you coul=
d
> still put the full path in the environmental variable CC before doing =
 =

> "make".

Again this is not an issue, I was just explaining my rather odd set up  =

which caused it to show up in this way.

>
>> If I try install as user (which it does not have write perms
>> for) it creates the gih and then root can install it. Again it seems =
 =

>> wrong
>> that it only gets build by make install rather than make. Root should=
  =

>> not
>> need to build anything to run install and finally, as I said I do not=
  =

>> want
>> the gih file anyway.
>
> FWIW, I have the same problem with the emacs support files.  No matter=
  =

> what
> I tell gnuplot's ./configure script,  "make install" always tries to  =

> write
> into /usr/local/share/emacs/site-lisp/  and fails if it doesn't have r=
oot
> permission.  This drives me bats, but I've never figured out how to fi=
x  =

> it.
>
LOL

>> ./configure tells me that help is always build . This seems to be hal=
f
>> correct. I would be best for this installation if I could be opted ou=
t.
>>
>> What is the best way to clean this up?
>
> In the Makefile there is a line
> SUBDIRS =3D config m4 term src docs $(LISPDIR) man demo tutorial share=

>
> Remove the "docs" entry and any others that you do not care about.
>
> If you are willing to sacrifice the help subsystem in order to make th=
e
> footprint smaller, then logically you would also want to omit help.c f=
rom
> the list of source files and comment out the calls to its routines.

I'm not that tight I need to byte pinch at this stage but saving 500k + =
is  =

relevant.

> You used to be able to accomplish this by adding -DNO_GIH to the CFLAG=
S,
> but that option seems to have suffered from bit rot in a couple of  =

> places.
> I'll see about whiping up a patch to restore that as a viable option
> unless you beat me to it.
>

Thanks, I would have thought that the most consistant way would be  =

--without-help , like --without-doc . That would keep everything tidy in=
  =

one ./configure command .

I wanted to make sure I was not over looking some option.

Many thanks for such a detailed reply.

regards. Peter.