** Can this be handled with symbolic links rather then renaming the scripts?
On 10/18/07, Johnathan Corgan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > A while back we did some clean up of the USRP examples, removing some > bit-rotted cruft, and moving the commonly used programs into gr-utils. > > These included things like usrp_fft.py, usrp_rx_cfile.py, and those > scripts that over time have become more utilities than examples. > > In the gr-utils component, we are now installing these into the > $prefix/bin directory, so they'll end up on the user's PATH and be > callable from anywhere without prefixing them with the examples path. > > However, a common convention on Linux, at least on Debian, Ubuntu, and > derived systems (probably Redhat too), is to strip the language specific > extension off scripts in the path. > > Would anyone have any heartache if we did this for the gr-utils scripts > as well as the relatively few other scripts we install on the path? > > usrp_fft.py -> usrp_fft > usrp_rx_cfile.py -> usrp_rx_cfile > > etc. > > It's not a critical item, but if we do this, it will need to be before > the 3.1 stable branch is officially released. > > -- > Johnathan Corgan > Corgan Enterprises LLC > http://corganenterprises.com > > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss-gnuradio mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnuradio >
_______________________________________________ Discuss-gnuradio mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnuradio
