Re: UGLY_DEFS for darwin in configure.in

[Thomas Treichl]

Thanks Marius,

just for me to understand your first sentence correctly: If you install GNU sed 
and compile Octave then this doesn't result in an error (in both ways) but the 
result is not the same as if we would remove these three lines and compile 
Octave with GNU's sed. You can see that if you run Octave and call

  octave_config_info

with the commented out three lines the correct result in the DEFS field then 
would be (at least it looks like this on my Linux box)

  DEFS = -DPACKAGE_NAME="" ... -DGNUPLOT_BINARY="gnuplot"

and if we keep these three lines then the (wrong) result looks like

  DEFS = -DPACKAGE_NAME=\"\" ... -DGNUPLOT_BINARY=\"gnuplot\"

If you say you use GNU's sed then I expect you can use that patch and get the 
right result? Thanks again,

  Thomas

Marius Schamschula schrieb:
> Thomas,
>
> I don't have a problem with the UGLY_DEFS since GNU sed is one of the 
> first things I install on a Mac, and thus is present on all my build 
> machines.
>
> However, anything called UGLY_DEFS must be a kludge...
>
> On Sep 22, 2007, at 5:31 PM, Thomas Treichl wrote:
>
> > Hi again,
> >
> > I've done a lot of tests and I spend quite a lot of time to see if the 
> > lines
> >
> >   *-*-darwin*)
> >     UGLY_DEFS=`echo $DEFS | sed 
> > 's,\\",\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\",g'`
> >   ;;
> >
> > in configure.in of the current Octave 2.9.14 sources are still 
> > necessary. The big problem that I've got is that I actually am not 
> > able to reproduce the problem. This means that I'm not able to compile 
> > Octave with MacOSX's original 'sed' at all, the problems are much 
> > bigger then just setting the UGLY_DEFS in a different way than on any 
> > other *nix platform (The reason may be that either MacOSX's sed is too 
> > much POSIX or too much broken in some way, I actually don't know).
> >
> > My wish would be that these lines could be completely be removed from 
> > the ./configure.in script but only if we are sure that there is 
> > absolutely no other MacOSX distribution packaging process broken. I've 
> > checked the MacPorts patch file where I've already found that these 
> > lines are commented out and I'm also forwarding this email to Jeffrey 
> > and Marius (from the Fink project and the Huntsville Macintosh Users 
> > Group) with the request if they maybe will have the time to apply the 
> > attached patch to the current Octave 2.9.14 on a Mac platform and see 
> > if this does work for them. That's actually the best poor idea that 
> > I've got to make sure to solve that problem...
> >
> >   Thomas