> How does this differ from what we talked about last week? If it's > the same, then the same deal applies: I'm waiting on the scons guys > to resolve some build issues before making any big changes. Nope, same thing. I figured the rearrangement meant stuff had been resolved and something had just gotten lost along the way :-)
> P.S. What is this mystery project which needs to include the IMP > headers? In my opinion, it'd be great to have at least some version > of this in the IMP SVN repository with Keren's impEM stuff, because > it's really the applications which define what we do (and need to > do) with IMP. When I am trying things out, I don't want to put things into the IMP svn, change the scons setup and whatever other things are necessary to use the existing build system. I think the best thing to do is to make another project and then include/link against imp. Eventually I hope other people will want to do the same :-)