On Wed, Dec 22, 2004 at 05:05:29PM +0000, Neil Williams wrote: > On Wednesday 22 December 2004 11:48 am, Chris Shoemaker wrote: > > > I just "make install" every time. Note that if you only change > > > source files (not headers) then you only need to make install > > > in the directories you've changed rather than "make install" in > > > the full source tree. If nothing else it saves a bit of time. > > > > I see. That's a good tip. I've been working as if this is also true > > for "make". Is that so? > > Better to skip the make and go for make install from the directory where you > made your changes. I even skip between directories and run two or three make > installs in gnucash/src/engine and gnucash/src/gnome in less time than it > takes to do a full make install from gnucash/. I also cheat - I edit the > local Makefile.am to remove test files in directories beneath the current one > from the build until I actually need to test. (top tip: remember to put them > back!)
Are you sure that is holds when editting .c files, too? My understanding is that make install is sufficient for modified scm files, but modified .c requires make. I think Derek implied exactly this is this thread. > > So I use Shift+F9 from Anjuta to build within the IDE according to the > relevant Makefile relating to the file being edited. That makes sure I Perhaps Shift+F9 is equivalent to 'make'? > haven't made some stupid typo. Then in a terminal (within Anjuta or > separate), a quick make install, cd /opt/gnucash/local/bin and ./gnucash - or > usually ./gnucash --nofile after a tip from Derek. Thanks for explaining your work-flow. I've learned so much by understanding how other people work. I don't know much about Anjuta, but I'm a bit wary of heavy-weight IDEs, because I use some pretty ancient hardware. Do you find Anjuta resource-friendly? My current environment is along the lines of emacs+gdb+etags. I find it quite functional, although not always intuitive. > > > I'd like to understand this better. I recognize the need to find the > > guile executable, and have the environment all setup, but that's all > > standard install issues. Are there some subtle or unique > > directory-finding requirements once the Scheme is being interpreted? > > Yes. e.g. the hierarchy druid loads it's example account files from a > location > determined from the --prefix and therefore set in the rest of the build. > Changes in things like that mean that only a make install will tell you if > your changes will work. > So I've learned. Is it considered undesirable for the installed binaries to be sensitive to their location? If this were a pure C app, I would suggest a dependence on an environment variable(s) for finding all the needed files. Is this more difficult with Scheme, or is there some other reason to prefer fixing paths at install-time? -chris _______________________________________________ gnucash-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
