Eric Blossom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I *really* suggest that you guys sort this out properly and generate a
> patch that fixes it. Otherwise this kludge is going to get
> propagated. You really don't want to be copying files around by hand.
> It definitely will lead to problems down the road.
>
> I believe the problematic difference is between the definitions for
> python script directory:
>
> SuSE 9.3 Pro
>
> checking for python script directory...
> ${prefix}/lib64/python2.4/site-packages
> checking for python extension module directory...
> ${exec_prefix}/lib64/python2.4/site-packages
>
> FC5
>
> checking for python script directory... ${prefix}/lib/python2.4/site-packages
> checking for python extension module directory...
> ${exec_prefix}/lib64/python2.4/site-packages
> checking for Python include path... /usr/include/python2.4
> checking Python.h usability... yes
> checking Python.h presence... yes
> checking for Python.h... yes
>
> That answer is produced by the AM_PATH_PYTHON .m4 macro that is used
> on the system. You can find the definition being used by examing
> gnuradio-core/aclocal.m4.
Given the "lib64" approach, I'd say that Suse is correct in using
lib64, because
1) site-packages contains binary libraries on my system, so it should
be versioned for 32/64 (on systems which support both and treat
64-bit binaries as alternative). E.g.:
/usr/pkg/lib/python2.4/site-packages/_curses.so: ELF 32-bit LSB shared object,
Intel 80386, version 1 (SYSV), for NetBSD 3.0, not stripped
2) Presumably the point of lib64 is that programs/libraries compiled
for 32 bits can be installed to lib. So someone should be able to
install GNU Radio libs in 32-bit mode as well, and if lib is used
there will be a conflict.
--
Greg Troxel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
pgpbt5Nmsh3PR.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Discuss-gnuradio mailing list Discuss-gnuradio@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnuradio
