Re: new patches

> Ah.
> 
> Yes, I haven't had time to think about how to deal with the examples.
> In the Debian package, examples end up getting installed as source
> code so that they can be compiled and used at a later time.  I think
> this might make sense for beepcore-c too, which is why I rewrote the
> makefiles to not build them.  But that job needs to be finished.

Having them installed as source code may make sense, for a developer package.
But I think having them available somewhere, compiled and ready to go, is also
useful, at least somewhere in the source tree.

> It _is_ possible to build something like the Release framework that
> previously existed; just do "make install DESTDIR=Release" and it will
> install the image there.  Then use ldconfig or LD_LIBRARY_PATH to get
> access to the shared libraries in the Release directory.

Yeah, that's true.  I thought that this was more convenient, and didn't waste
too much space or time.  The profiles wouldn't be installed to that directory,
since they're not part of the installed system (nor am I sure they should be).

Actually, it might work better to consolidate the profiles and the examples into
one directory.  The profiles, at least how it seems to me, are only used as
examples.  And I'm not sure why the shared libraries of the profiles are built
into a .libs directory; is any other part of them useful?

And a few bugs I ran into with make install DESTDIR=Release..
libtool doesn't allow non-absolute paths, so it will refuse to install any of
the libraries.
Also, for some reason it tries to install to $DESTDIR$prefix (I've only tested
with a prefix that I specified to configure).
Neither of these are showstoppers, but they may be something to look at for 1.0.

-matt


-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by: Dice - The leading online job board
for high-tech professionals. Search and apply for tech jobs today!
http://seeker.dice.com/seeker.epl?rel_code=31