On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 12:25:45AM +0200, Carlo de Falco wrote: > 2010/5/23 Thomas Weber <[email protected]>: > > Hi, > > > > I'm currently faced with a bug report against ocs in Debian (basically, > > the PKG_ADD/PKG_DEL file assume they are in the same directory as all > > the directories containing the .m files) > > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=582750 > > > > Before I spend time trying to work-around this: is there a reason that > > ocs contains 6 directories for its 21 .m files? I mean, moving them into > > one directory would mean one PKG_ADD file less to parse for Octave > > at startup and 6 directories less to stat at startup. And ~20 files in a > > directory seems manageable to me. > > > > Any objections to moving these files into just one directory? > > YES, I do object. > Please DO NOT change the directory structure of OCS.
Ignoring the bug report, the issue of start-up time for Octave remains. What's the benefit of having the files separated? > ocs is not the only package containig subdirectories, why do you see > this problem only for ocs? That's a good question. I'm looking into it. > why is wrong to assume that PKG_ADD be in the directory above the code > directories? FHS[1] mandates that architecture-dependent and architecture-independent files are separated. We put PKG_ADD files into the architecture-dependent directory, because they normally influence only the .oct files. [1] http://www.pathname.com/fhs/ Thomas ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Octave-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/octave-dev
