On 24 May 2010, at 10:39, Thomas Weber wrote: > Ignoring the bug report, I do not want the bug report to remain ignored, I am willing to help find a fix, just not this way.
> the issue of start-up time for Octave remains. I don't think there is any measurable performance hit due to the more directories added to the path, can you show any numbers supporting this? > What's the benefit of having the files separated? The directory subdivison follows the logical structure of the design of OCS, I beleive keeping the code well organized helps a lot in explaining and understanding how it works, at least it has been very useful for me in the past when explaining it to students. >> 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. The assumption that PKG_ADD influences .oct files only is wrong in this case and I beleive there are other such cases, is it possible to reconsider the choice of putting PKG_ADD in the arch dependent directory? > [1] http://www.pathname.com/fhs/ I'll have a look at the link and see if it helps me find out a way around this problem > Thomas c. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Octave-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/octave-dev
