Michael McGonagle said this at Tue, 18 Mar 2003 16:38:38 -0600:
>> into Externals, and help patches into Help.) That, however, would require
>> a strong, top-down convention for marking the locations and destinations
>> of the externals and help patches.
>
>Adam, this is one of those things that could be hard to implement, with
>PD being cross-platform. On the other hand, it would not be a difficult
>thing in your distribution to setup these standard locations.
Well, it would be nice to do this in a way where scripts across platform
can take advantage of it. I was imagining a couple files (named
".EXTERNALS" and ".HELP", I suppose) along the lines of:
.EXTERNALS:
location: ./vasp
vasp
pd/*.pd
.HELP:
location: .
pd-help/*.pd
The first line gives the destination location (in relation to the pd/
extras or doc/5.reference) directory, and the following lines give the
locations of the files to be moved. (I suppose default .pd_linux, .dll,
etc. suffixes should be omitted.)
Is this any more useful than "install" rules in a makefile? I think so,
but it might seem like a marginal difference at first. Unlike many
install rules, this doesn't assume anything about absolute paths (or even
relative paths--some rules for externals make assumptions about which
directory the external is *made* in).
Is this sort of explicit marking needed? I think so. I did some mini-
experiments, to see if it was possible to guess the difference between
help files and abstractions. It's really hard, even with a human in the
loop, sometimes.
Thoughts?
adam
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Adam T. Lindsay atl(a)comp.lancs.ac.uk
Computing Dept, Lancaster University +44(0)1524/594.537
Lancaster, LA1 4YR, UK Fax:+44(0)1524/593.608
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-