octave-maintainers
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: error building GUI on Mac OS-X 10.6.8


From: Daniel J Sebald
Subject: Re: error building GUI on Mac OS-X 10.6.8
Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2012 12:16:29 -0500
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.24) Gecko/20111108 Fedora/3.1.16-1.fc14 Thunderbird/3.1.16

On 08/12/2012 04:06 PM, John W. Eaton wrote:
On 12-Aug-2012, Ben Abbott wrote:

|>  Might there be a good reason to add an option for the build directory to 
the configure script?  Patterning after this:
|>
|>  Fine tuning of the installation directories:
|>   --bindir=DIR            user executables [EPREFIX/bin]
|>   --sbindir=DIR           system admin executables [EPREFIX/sbin]
|>
|>  for example:
|>
|>  --builddir=DIR           object and libraries
|>
|>  It's essentially the same as doing a
|>
|>  mkdir ../DIR
|>  cd ../DIR
|>  ../octave/configure OTHER_OPTS
|>  cd ../octave
|>
|>  Or something like that.  By having this as an option, it lets people know 
that a separate build directory can be done, and it might be useful down the road 
to someone who wants to build a generic script or something.
|>
|>  Dan
|
| Sounds good to me!

This seems like a generic option for configure scripts, so I think you
should discuss it on the autoconf mailing list so that it would be
consistent for all projects that use autoconf, not just Octave.

The first feedback is that the group will discuss a bit, seeking input from GNU Coding Standards. This concept is already covered by VPATH (virtual path) and is discussed in the Autoconf general INSTALL file. Here is a tutorial on VPATH:

http://www.freesoftwaremagazine.com/articles/configuring_a_project_with_autoconf

Note the list of reasons for VPATH in the above link are pretty much what we've concluded.

Does anyone here have experience with VPATH? If so, does this seem like something to utilize for the separate build directory idea? My initial reaction is that VPATH doesn't look like a real robust feature, having some older make tools not working properly and some of the comments in aclocal.m4 suggesting some quirks.

So one argument against making the VPATH concept a one-liner (from Autoconf's perspective) is that it makes running into snags too easy for the person not familiar with VPATH resulting in too many complaints.

If I hear more, I'll let you know.

Dan


reply via email to

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