[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: octave version
From: |
Kurt Hornik |
Subject: |
Re: octave version |
Date: |
Thu, 22 May 1997 18:15:05 +0200 |
>>>>> Doug Warner writes:
> Kurt Hornik writes:
> | It's probably too late now that all changes have already been made, but
> | I am not too happy about them.
> |
> | Are we really talking having
> |
> | /usr/local/lib/octave-${version}
> |
> | and /usr/local/lib/octave linked to the one with the highest version
> | number? Where will /usr/local/lib/octave/site go then? What is wrong
> | about the current layout?
> Hasn't that been changed to /usr/local/share/octave/site in version
> 2.x? In my 2.x installations, there is no /usr/local/lib/octave
> directory.
Your mileage may vary. John changed the defaults (hmm, following my
suggestion) to respect the GNU standards which have different values for
datadir (share), libdir (lib) and libexecdir (libexec) [the last is not
used by Octave].
On the other hand, we follow the Linux File System Standard which still
has everything in lib.
Still, amongst my questions is the following. We now have
$datadir/octave/$version/...
$datadir/octave/site/...
If we change to
$datadir/octave-$version
and link $datadir/octave to one of these, where does the site tree go?
(And please, don't start something like GNU Emacs as introducing a
version dependent sitelispdir ...)
-k
Re: octave version, John W. Eaton, 1997/05/21