Re: Further on MEX

[Thomas Weber]

Am Mittwoch, den 07.01.2009, 22:20 +0100 schrieb David Bateman:
> John W. Eaton wrote:
> > On  7-Jan-2009, David Bateman wrote:
> >
> > | We'd also then need to use the same mex extensions as matlab itself
> > | does though.
> >
> > Why?  Can't you just rename the files to change the extension when you
> > install them?
> >   
> Yes, you can. However, that is an additional step that a novice users 
> has to do to get it to work.
> > The only reason for having the different extensions is so that MEX
> > files for multiple platforms can be installed in the saem directory.
> > Doing that causes trouble for people packaging Octave, doesn't it?
> > The assumption is that binary files go in specific directories
> > (/usr/lib or /usr/libexec instead of /usr/share).  But we still have
> > problems because of the way the loadpath works (the assumption being
> > that you can add a package in Matlab by adding a directory to the
> > path).
> >   
> I thought the LSB specified architecture dependent and independent 
> directories 

Yes[1].

> and so the mex files should always be in different 
> directories for different platforms if packaged correctly.

No. The platform-specific files go into /usr/lib, platform-independent
files into /usr/share. 
So, you will have the .mex file in a directory under /usr/lib, but that
directory name is the same for every architecture.

[1] Actually, it's the FHS, but the LSB has the FHS as a mandatory part.