Re: Short report Cygwin Octave-2.9.13

[Tatsuro MATSUOKA]

Dear  Benjamin

> Won't this lead to troubles if the users moves the
> package around?
> One option you could use ist the possibility to add
> a postfix to 
> the gcc/g++ compilers, and then use this name, or
> insert the version 
> number like 'g++-3.4.4-foo'. Then the distributed
> compiler would be 
> more specfific for the octave release and a mixture
> of different 
> compilers would not mess up.
> Another problem that might come up is the fact that
> the library and 
> include paths for the compiler's system files are
> normally hardcoded
> into gcc at build stage. The MingW Package has - I
> believe - a patch
> included, since the binary is relocatable. I'm not
> so sure if the cygwin
> build of gcc also features this.
> If you cannot get around this, then the binary build
> must always
> use a fixed installation path.

Octave 2.9.13 on cygwin are relocatable without any
patches. 
I found other binaries (gnuplot and GCC) are also
relocatable.  So I will change install directory according
to your advices the below.
I will revise the mkoctfile accordingly.

> And hopefully also the (upcoming) mingw-builds :)

I also think so.  I am now using my time for octave only
for the cygwin port.   
I am looking forward to coming up your mingw octave.

> For the sake of throwing in another opinion: Since
> the installation 
> path will probably have to be fixed (see above) I
> would choose something
> more distinct like /opt/octave[/-]2.9.13 or
> something like that, to
> make clear that the binary does not fit into the
> standard-cygwin-installation-folder-structure.

It is a good idea! I will do it the next testing binary
distribution on my web.

http://www.geocities.jp/tmacchant2/

> I would not separate into basic and developer. To me
> this is one unit
> that belongs together. I know that the current
> cygwin octave packages
> split into a number of sub-packages but this is not
> the way I would
> choose.
> Having the forge 'toolboxes' seperately I agree,
> since it resembles 
> a kind of 'add-on' functionality - like a toolbox.
> OTOH, seperating the developer stuff would enable to
> update the octave
> release without re-packing the (same) gcc
> environment, and would also 
> yield smaller binaries. 
> 

Sincerely,

T. Matsuoka

--------------------------------------
Easy + Joy + Powerful = Yahoo! Bookmarks x Toolbar
http://pr.mail.yahoo.co.jp/toolbar/