Re: build_packages.m script, visibility?

[PhilipNienhuis]

Oliver Heimlich wrote
> On 27.12.2015 22:06, John Donoghue wrote:
>> Pushed http://hg.octave.org/mxe-octave/rev/bdcddfdc57d0
>> 
>> There is a python script tools/pkg-install.py that is called from make
>> to build/install the package - a lot of the code is a a close
>> translation of octave to python (I'm not a particularly good python
>> programmer so sorry to those that are)
> 
> Is the python script called by the installer or during creation of the
> installer?  I find it complicated to duplicate what is already done by
> pkg in Octave (see below).
> 
>> The post_install.m file from within a package (if one exists) is copied
>> to share/octave/site/m/once_only/  I had thought of adding a script that
>> on first run would go through and run anything in that directory one
>> time and then remove it?
> 
> post_install.m is used by two packages only.  “io” moves a PKG_ADD file
> around and “stk” removes corr, graphics_toolkit, isrow, linsolve, and
> quantile from stk/inst/misc/mole.  Could this be patched away in
> mxe-octave?  If not, you have to make sure that the scripts are called
> with the right parameters (installation paths and information from
> DESCRIPTION).

Maybe a bit off-topic, but io's post_install.m is a mere workaround for
problems in pkg.m (that -AFAIU-during installation and loading packages runs
package functions (called through PKG_ADD) w/o bothering if all of the
package is already loaded). ISTR there was a bug report or a thread on this
subject (or PKG_ADD) in the maintainers ML.

Quite a while ago Carnë suggested to me an alternative for what io's PKG_ADD
/ PKG_DEL do, but I didn't bother then because (1) the existing
post_install.m procedure has always worked fine and reliably, (2) Carnë's
alternative solution looked quite a bit convoluted and fragile to me
compared to post_install.m, and (3) there are (were?) still plans to move
the spreadsheet I/O, for which the whole post_install.m file is required, to
core Octave anyway.

If there could be an easy alternative rule in mxe-octave to fix this I'd
prefer this.  At the moment I have no time & priority for delving into io's
PKG_ADD / PKG_DEL things.

Philip




--
View this message in context: 
http://octave.1599824.n4.nabble.com/build-packages-m-script-visibility-tp4673702p4674231.html
Sent from the Octave - Maintainers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.