Re: globally installed packages vs. relocatable Octave

[Ben Abbott]

> On Nov 6, 2014, at 1:25 PM, John W. Eaton <address@hidden> wrote:
> 
> Currently, the absolute directory name corresponding to a globally
> installed package is saved in the octave_packages file.  This causes
> trouble for relocating an Octave installation.
> 
> It is also possible to set the "prefix" for global package
> installations.  This may be done independently for each installed
> package.  Additionaly, the "prefix" for architecture dependent files
> must be set separately, as well as the location of the file that
> contains the list of installed packages.
> 
> Is it necessary to allow the global prefix to be modified, or would it
> be OK to simply expect that globally installed packages are located in
> a directory under OCTAVE_HOME?  If we could assume this, then the
> package database file would not have to contain the full directory
> name for globally installed packages and it would be easier to
> relocate an installation of Octave that includes globally installed
> packages.
> 
> My motivation here is to make it easier to build a binary package for
> Windows (for example) that includes a set of pre-installed packages
> and that can be easily installed in any directory on the system.
> 
> jwe
> 

I don't think there was ever a solution for global packages for Octave bundles 
on Mac OS X. I looked over my work from a few years back. My impression is that 
I had punted and required all packages to be local. Placing all global packages 
under OCTAVE_HOME would obviously work for Mac OS X as well.

Ben