[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [CHANGESET] pkg.m patch to help debian packaging (WAS: Re: very smal
From: |
Sébastien Villemot |
Subject: |
Re: [CHANGESET] pkg.m patch to help debian packaging (WAS: Re: very small packages - merge into general/miscelleneous or move into core) |
Date: |
Wed, 12 Feb 2014 22:14:44 +0100 |
Le lundi 10 février 2014 à 14:48 +0100, c. a écrit :
> 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.
Sure, this changeset is useful as it makes things simpler.
> > 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.
I have just removed the "pkg prefix" line in /etc/octave.conf from the
Debian package, I could verify that this apparently breaks nothing.
Unless we find a problem that I had overlooked, this change should be
effective when we upload 3.8.1 to Debian.
--
.''`. Sébastien Villemot
: :' : Debian Developer
`. `' http://www.dynare.org/sebastien
`- GPG Key: 4096R/381A7594
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
- Re: general/parallel (was: Re: very small packages - ...), (continued)
Re: very small packages - merge into general/miscelleneous or move into core, John hunt, 2014/02/02
Re: very small packages - merge into general/miscelleneous or move into core, Carnë Draug, 2014/02/02
Re: very small packages - merge into general/miscelleneous or move into core, Sébastien Villemot, 2014/02/05