John Darrington <j...@darrington.wattle.id.au> skribis:
> On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 05:42:17PM +0100, Andreas Enge wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 05:14:57PM +0100, John Darrington wrote:
> > The octave build system is rather naive. These propagated inputs
> don't actually
> > *need* to be present at configure/build time. But the ./configure
> (rather stupidly IMO)
> > checks for their presence, and turns off the relevant features if they
> are not found.
> > Therefore, one must declare them as native-inputs just to keep
> ./configure happy AND
> > as propagated inputs because they are called in a pipe from the octave
> program itself.
>
> Would it be reasonable to patch the lines in which external programs are
> called, replacing the program name by its complete path with a
> well-chosen
> (substitute*)?
> Then one would not need to propagate the inputs.
>
> I don't think that will work.
I think it would. If there’s a line like:
execlp ("makeinfo" ...);
patching that to, say:
execl ("/.../bin/makeinfo" ...);
will definitely work. (This is what Octave’s build system should be
doing, actually.)
WDYT?
(As an example, see how mingetty is patched to refer to a specific
‘login’ program, in admin.scm.)
Ludo’.
