Re: Distribution-specific include paths for several versions of Octave

[John W. Eaton]

On  4-Dec-2006, David Bateman wrote:

| Yes but you had to explicitly pass the "-I/usr/include/octave-2.1.73".
| To my mind, the reason for the symbolic link would be that then you
| wouldn't need the "-I" arguments to mkoctfile at all...

Yes, if you are going to have the link then I think it should be

  /usr/include/octave -> /usr/include/octave-VERSION/octave

I don't think we should change mkoctfile though.  I think it will be
more reliable if it uses -I options to pick up the specific version of
the header files that correspond to the version of mkoctfile that is
used.

Or, until we have a stable API that can be expected to work across
versions of Octave, you could just eliminate the symbolic link and
assume that people will use mkoctfile to work with the Octave
libraries.  If they don't use mkoctfile, then it might not hurt to
force them to be aware of the version that they are using, and that
there is no stable API.  If they complain about that, then ask them to
assist in designing the stable API and doing the work necessary to
maintain it...

jwe