[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Octave-patch-tracker] [patch #10058] src/biosig.mk: update to v2.2.1
From: |
Markus Mützel |
Subject: |
[Octave-patch-tracker] [patch #10058] src/biosig.mk: update to v2.2.1 |
Date: |
Fri, 16 Apr 2021 08:56:24 -0400 (EDT) |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/89.0.4389.128 Safari/537.36 Edg/89.0.774.77 |
Follow-up Comment #4, patch #10058 (project octave):
Thanks for explaining. That probably means that it is good to go on the
release branch. There is probably a low risk of breaking anything apart from
the biosig4octmat package anyway.
Wrt installing the package itself, I see the following rules for Octave
(Forge) packages in `Makefile.in` in the MXE Octave repository:
ifeq ($(MXE_SYSTEM),msvc)
define OCTAVE_FORGE_PKG_BUILD
$(INSTALL) -d
'$(3)$(HOST_PREFIX)/local/octave-$(octave_VERSION)/share/octave'
$(INSTALL) -d
'$(3)$(HOST_PREFIX)/local/octave-$(octave_VERSION)/lib/octave'
cd '$(1)/..' && tar cvfz $($(PKG)_FILE) $($(PKG)_SUBDIR)
cd '$(1)/..' &&
$(HOST_PREFIX)/local/octave-$(octave_VERSION)/bin/octave-cli.exe -H -f -q \
--eval "more off;" \
--eval "pkg('prefix', '`cd "$(3)" && pwd
-W`$(HOST_PREFIX)/local/octave-$(octave_VERSION)/share/octave/packages', '`cd
"$(3)" && pwd
-W`$(HOST_PREFIX)/local/octave-$(octave_VERSION)/lib/octave/packages');" \
--eval "pkg('install', '-verbose', '$($(PKG)_FILE)');"
endef
else
define OCTAVE_FORGE_PKG_BUILD
if [ $(ENABLE_BINARY_PACKAGES) = no ]; then \
mkdir -p '$(3)$(HOST_PREFIX)/src'; \
cd '$(1)/..' \
&& tar cvfz $($(PKG)_FILE) $($(PKG)_SUBDIR) \
&& $(INSTALL) -m644 '$($(PKG)_FILE)' '$(3)$(HOST_PREFIX)/src'; \
else \
cd '$(1)/..' && \
tar cfz $($(PKG)_FILE) $($(PKG)_SUBDIR) && \
OCTAVE_CONFIG=$(MXE_OCTAVECONFIG) TMP="$(1)/.." \
$(CONFIGURE_CPPFLAGS) $(CONFIGURE_LDFLAGS) \
MKOCTFILE=$(MXE_MKOCTFILE) MAKE=$(MAKE) \
CONFIGURE_OPTIONS="$(HOST_AND_BUILD_CONFIGURE_OPTIONS)" $(4) \
$(PYTHON3) $(TOP_DIR)/tools/pkg-install.py install -verbose
"$($(PKG)_FILE)"; \
fi
endef
endif
I'm not sure if MXE Octave can still be used with msvc currently. (At least, I
don't know of anyone that currently uses it that way.) So it is probably ok to
focus on the rule in the `else` branch for now.
IIUC, the (patched) tarballs of the packages are installed instead of the
"actual" packages if ENABLE_BINARY_PACKAGES is "no".
I'm not sure if this will be important for your package. Anyway, I think that
we can probably defer that to later.
The python script that the `else` branch is calling is this one:
https://hg.octave.org/mxe-octave/file/tip/tools/pkg-install.py
We'd probably need to do something equivalent with the biosig4octmat package
if we want to get it installed correctly by MXE Octave. That's probably at
least the later part of `install_pkg` and the entire(?) `rebuild_pkg`
function.
"biosig4octmat" is a bit of an "oddball" in that it's packaging a library + an
Octave package in the same tarball.
>From an MXE Octave point of view, it would be much easier if we could split
installation of the library and the package into two separate
tarballs/packages.
In that case, we could use the former part (or the existing one) to install
the library like we currently do.
Ideally, we could just use the OCTAVE_FORGE_PKG_BUILD rule to build and
install the Octave package tarball.
I slightly modified the Makefile in your mexbiosig tarball and added a MXE
Octave buildrule for it.
I don't know if that modification would break Matlab compatibility. But it
looks like the package compiled and installed its files correctly in a test
with MXE Octave for me.
See attached files.
Do you think, this is something you could work with?
(file #51279, file #51280)
_______________________________________________________
Additional Item Attachment:
File name: mexbiosig-2.0.6.src.tar.gz Size:35 KB
<https://file.savannah.gnu.org/file/mexbiosig-2.0.6.src.tar.gz?file_id=51279>
File name: mexbiosig.mk Size:0 KB
<https://file.savannah.gnu.org/file/mexbiosig.mk?file_id=51280>
_______________________________________________________
Reply to this item at:
<https://savannah.gnu.org/patch/?10058>
_______________________________________________
Message sent via Savannah
https://savannah.gnu.org/
- [Octave-patch-tracker] [patch #10058] src/biosig.mk: update to v2.2.1, Alois Schlögl, 2021/04/14
- [Octave-patch-tracker] [patch #10058] src/biosig.mk: update to v2.2.1, Markus Mützel, 2021/04/15
- [Octave-patch-tracker] [patch #10058] src/biosig.mk: update to v2.2.1, Markus Mützel, 2021/04/15
- [Octave-patch-tracker] [patch #10058] src/biosig.mk: update to v2.2.1, Alois Schlögl, 2021/04/16
- [Octave-patch-tracker] [patch #10058] src/biosig.mk: update to v2.2.1,
Markus Mützel <=
- [Octave-patch-tracker] [patch #10058] src/biosig.mk: update to v2.2.1, Alois Schlögl, 2021/04/17
- [Octave-patch-tracker] [patch #10058] src/biosig.mk: update to v2.2.1, Markus Mützel, 2021/04/18
- [Octave-patch-tracker] [patch #10058] src/biosig.mk: update to v2.2.1, Alois Schlögl, 2021/04/18
- [Octave-patch-tracker] [patch #10058] src/biosig.mk: update to v2.2.1, Markus Mützel, 2021/04/20
- [Octave-patch-tracker] [patch #10058] src/biosig.mk: update to v2.2.1, Markus Mützel, 2021/04/22
- [Octave-patch-tracker] [patch #10058] src/biosig.mk: update to v2.2.1, Markus Mützel, 2021/04/22
- [Octave-patch-tracker] [patch #10058] src/biosig.mk: update to v2.2.1, Markus Mützel, 2021/04/22
- [Octave-patch-tracker] [patch #10058] src/biosig.mk: update to v2.2.1, Markus Mützel, 2021/04/23
- [Octave-patch-tracker] [patch #10058] src/biosig.mk: update to v2.2.1, Markus Mützel, 2021/04/25