octave-maintainers
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

[CHANGESET] pkg.m patch to help debian packaging (WAS: Re: very small pa


From: c.
Subject: [CHANGESET] pkg.m patch to help debian packaging (WAS: Re: very small packages - merge into general/miscelleneous or move into core)
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 14:48:24 +0100

On 5 Feb 2014, at 12:04, Sébastien Villemot <address@hidden> wrote:

> Hi Carlo,
> 
> Le mercredi 29 janvier 2014 à 06:50 +0100, c. a écrit :
>> On 24 Jan 2014, at 10:21, c. <address@hidden> wrote:
>>> On 24 Jan 2014, at 08:11, c. <address@hidden> wrote:
>>> 
>>>>> I don't have time right now, but maybe with the refactored pkg.m we
>>>>> might be able to overcome this by patching pkg.m directly (which we have
>>>>> avoided in the past). 
>>>> 
>>>> I'm preparing a patch to make this approach easier.
>>> 
>>> Could you please check out the attached changeset?
>>> 
>>> With it you should be able to change the default
>>> package installation paths by patching the single file
>>> 
>>> scripts/pkg/private/default_prefix.m
>>> 
>>> you should only change the path for global install
>>> and leave the default for local install unchanged.
>>> 
>>> Does this approach suit your needs?
> 
>> Did you have time to look at this patch?
> 
> I am not sure what you are trying to achieve with this patch. Is the
> idea to move the default global prefix out of pkg.m, into a new smaller
> file? If this is indeed the case, I don't think this is especially
> relevant for us. We can patch pkg.m directly.

That changeset was just trying to make patching pkg.m simpler, 
the default locations for global install paths were hardcoded
in different accls in different files all over the place, 
with that changeset you only need to pach one line in one file,
without you would have to make more extensive and obtrusive changes.

Even if this changeset may not be need for you, I think it is a
good thing to do so I'll apply it on the default branch.

> Actually I realize that we may not even need to patch it. I am currently
> investigating whether we really need to set "pkg prefix"
> in /etc/octave.conf. Maybe this is no longer needed.

Please keep me informed about your progress, I'll be happy to help if I can.

> Cheers,
c.

reply via email to

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