X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Message-ID: <4397B5DE.4090408@cwilson.fastmail.fm> Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2005 23:26:06 -0500 From: Charles Wilson User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5 (Windows/20051025) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: octave-forge dependency? References: <20051207153014 DOT 36506 DOT qmail AT web51505 DOT mail DOT yahoo DOT com> <439703E8 DOT 10701 AT equate DOT dyndns DOT org> In-Reply-To: <439703E8.10701@equate.dyndns.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Chris Taylor wrote: > James R. Phillips wrote: >> OK, it seems an elaboration of the idea could though. The >> autoconf/automake >> environment needs to be like octave, while the rest of the time, you want >> miktex in the front of the path. Wouldn't executing >> >> export PATH=$PATH_FOR_OCTAVE >> >> before starting ./configure work for that purpose? >> >> jrp >> > > No. > > Two things: Firstly, the OP _doesn't_ want his configure scripts picking > up tetex, ergo tetex must not be in the path. As jrp pointed out in a separate message, I don't mind having tetex installed *as long as* it doesn't interfere with my command-line usage of miktex. It's okay if my packages get configured using (now) available tetex tools; they are mostly "re-build the documentation" and don't actually add new runtime dependencies to MY packages. So resetting the PATH to remove miktex, just before configuring, is okay -- but feels like a kludgy, ad-hoc solution to me. If I wanted to do it "Right" (e.g. the Corporate, controlled-release) I'd have a rigorously consistent runtime environment that I used to build packages for release (e.g. with only minimal "other" packages installed). A partway solution would be a separate user, sharing my kitchen-sink cygwin installation, but with controlled .profile stuff specifically for this purpose (and THAT user wouldn't need "miktex" in the front of HIS $path). Or, I suppose, a "launch maintainance shell" script that culls out all the "goodies" of my normal shell environment. But, fellas, I'm touched that my original post raised such a ruckus -- it's really not that big a deal (to me). I'm okay, you're okay. I guess it's good that the actual source of the dependency was tracked down, and will hopefully lead to a correction in gnuplot's code, but gollee... > Secondly, tetex installs (at least last time I checked) in such a way > that it's located automatically by configure scripts (given that it's in > the default path). > The only way to stop this behaviour is to > a) completely trash the cygwin path, and thus lose 99% of the functionality > b) install tetex elsewhere (/usr/local/octave-tetex/*hierarchy_here* for > example). > > Neither of these are brilliant solutions, and the latter would actually > require hacking the cygwin package in order for it to install there, and > still work (it would probably require tetex to be recompiled). Yep, all the above would be true -- IF I really really didn't want my configure scripts to find tetex, or be used by packages when I build them (since, by default, tetex goes smack in the middle of all the OTHER cygwin tools, right there under /usr). But *that* doesn't matter to me. [snip] I think the rest of this post is OBE, given the discovery of the gnuplot issue. Thanks for everybody chiming in on this thread. (I gotta start checking the list more than once a day...) -- Chuck -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/