[Octave-bug-tracker] [bug #45369] pkg build leads to duplication of PKG_ADD and PKG_DEL files

[Julien Bect]

Follow-up Comment #17, bug #45369 (project octave):

>> I just realized that when you said "I think the best
>> fix is to no longer accept PKG_ADD and PKG_DEL files
>> at the root of the package" (see #1), perhaps did you
>> actually mean "not at the root of the package, ./inst
>> and ./src instead" ? In which case this is very close
>> to my proposition.
>
> Yes. This is exactly what I proposed. Point is, I can't
> see a user-case where it makes sense to have the same
> PKG_ADD and PKG_DEL scripts in both arch-dependent and
> independent directories.

I never said anything about having the *same* PKG_ADD / PKG_DEL file in
several places. (Did I ?)

What I really mean is, I think, the same as you:

If there is a PKG_ADD/PKG_DEL file in ./inst, or PKG_ADD/PKG_DEL directives in
the m-files that are contained in inst, they should end up in the
arch-independent directory.

If there is PKG_ADD/PKG_DEL file in ./src, or PKG_ADD/PKG_DEL directives in
the source files that is contained in ./src, they should end up in the
arch-dependent directory.

These two options do not have to be mutually exclusive in my opinion. For
instance, a package could have PKG_ADD directives in ./inst that call some
"setup" functions (see, e.g., stk_init in the stk_package) *and* have PKG_ADD
directives in the src directory (for instance autoload statements). In this
case I find more natural two keep two separate PKG_ADD files.

    _______________________________________________________

Reply to this item at:

  <http://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?45369>

_______________________________________________
  Message posté via/par Savannah
  http://savannah.gnu.org/