Daniel Russel wrote: > One point that I didn't really make clear, is that I don't see that > the actual library files and the build process necessarily need to > follow the semantic kernel/package distinction. It may make sense to > have "Packages", but still build everything into one library and one > python module.
Sure, but that's not the model we chose for IMP; it is designed to be modular. The expectation is that most of those modules will not even be hosted in the Sali lab, let alone built into one library.
> The current situation, with having to separately build and install > impem is really undesirable and does not scale nicely.
What don't you like about that?
> Also, at the > moment you can't really use thing uninstalled (since the libs are > scattered across many directories) and you can't easily install IMP on > a mac since the paths don't get set.
You don't like 'scons install' ? That should put everything in the right place. But right now we're very far from a public release, so I don't really see the point worrying about it excessively.
Ben