Re: UGLY_DEFS

[John W. Eaton]

On 03/01/2013 06:24 PM, Rik wrote:

> I think we can and should get rid of OCTAVE_CONF_UGLY_DEFS.  The problem is
> that there is a second usage of ${UGLY_DEFS} as a replacement for
> OCTAVE_CONF_DEFS and octave_config_info ("DEFS") is used several times in
> the code.  One example is
>
> doc/interpreter/geometryimages.m:32:  if (isempty (findstr
> (octave_config_info ("DEFS"), "HAVE_QHULL"))

Oh yeah, that problem.  I thought there was something like that, but I 
didn't find it because I was searching for UGLY_DEFS and that only shows 
up in a few places.  This indirect usage makes it hard to find.  I think 
I once tried to remove it only to find that it was needed the way you 
describe.

> So, eventually we need a permanent fix for this.

I'll think about it.  Maybe there is something else we can do.  We don't 
really need all of the HAVE_X things, right?  I think we only need the 
ones that correspond to optional packages that Octave depends on.

jwe