Re: Issues with build Fedora RPMs of octave packages

[David Bateman]

Michael Goffioul wrote:
> On 9/21/07, David Bateman <address@hidden> wrote:
>>> Well are oct-files libraries? From a certain way of looking at it yes,
>>> but you can't be guaranteed to be able to link to them.. Looking at the
>>> issue from within Octave it would be easies to make pkg (when run as
>>> root), install the packages files to
>>>
>>> LOCALAPIFILEDIR/<package>
>>>
>>> Another reason that there needs to be separate directories is that the
>>> package manager might have one package loaded and others not and having
>>> or the files in one path makes it harder (if not impossible) to allow
>>> only a portion of the oct-files to be used.
>>>
>> There is another issue with using LOCALAPIFILEDIR or something like it..
>>  The default path of octave is set to contain these directories and all
>> sub-directories of these. A better choice might be
>>
>> <libexec>/octave/packages/getarch()/<package>
> 
> I guess this will completely defeat the current strategy used in the java
> package to find octave.jar at runtime... :-(
> I think I'll then install octave.jar also in libexec, even if it's
> arch-independent.
> 

Michael,

I haven't applied this and won't till at least one distribution packager
confirms that it is sufficient to meet their packaging rules and
acceptable. I'd be happy if someone proposes an alternative location.
The patch I propose only needs a single line changed to propose any
alternative location.

I also wonder what should be done on Windows.. Should the architecture
dependent files just be grouped with the package files as currently
done, or for consistency should they be in

<libexec>/octave/packages?getarch()/<package>

as the proposed patch does. I'd be happy either way, and the change to
the previous patch to allow the previous behavior under windows is minimal..

D.