Hi,

On Sun, Jun 01, 2003 at 11:20:14AM +0200, Frank Heckenbach wrote:

Mariano Alvarez Fernandez wrote:

...

Guillem Jover wrote:

...

I've been thinking on packaging grx for Debian. I don't know if I'll do that but anyway, as I have been using it for some projects I've some updates to the library.

This patch updates the configure and some makefiles, it uses now standard GNU configure paths, overrideable with the configure script, or make variables. It honours DESTDIR, and makes easier the packaging task.

Thanks for your work, but I am not sure to apply this patch.

I don't know why a programmer could prefer to install a grx package instead the real distribution.

This is meant for creating binary packages, not the source distribution.

Oh yes, sorry for the confusion. Also when I said I was thinking on packaging for Debian I meant to upload to Debian proper. I have packages available for the unstable distribution and can do backports for the stable/testing distribution for anyone interested.

The apt line are:

deb http://www.hadrons.org/~guillem/debian sid/binary/ deb-src http://www.hadrons.org/~guillem/debian sid/source/

Packages named: libgrx20, libgrx-dev, grx-bin

...

Anyway, if other people like this patch, please say, and I probably will apply it. The patch doesn't do nothing new, but it doesn't hurt neither.

I think it's quite useful to be able to build binary packages without installing a package and without using special tricks (such as temporary overriding the prefix).

The patch seems to work fine in my test. BTW, I'd change `unitspath' to `unitpath' or `unit_path' (just replace it globally in configure), since the corresponding GPC option is `--unit-path', but it doesn't matter so much.

It has been some time since I wrote pascal code and don't know the current environment. Used that name following the fontpath naming.

I have reviewed my initial patch and attach another one with corrections for unitpath and for fontpath handling. (apply this patch after the first, if you have to).

While you're at it, Guillem, would you think it's useful to add a `bindist' target to the Makefile (which does a `make install install-info' with DESTDIR set and puts the installed files in an archive)?

Maybe it can be useful, but I think it's better to do specific distro packaging as each has it's own quirks and singularities. Anyway I think this is something that has to be decided by Mariano.

regards, guillem