Re: directory structure
Daniel Russel wrote: > Can we have an include directory (new_imp/include) where and a > (new_imp/include/IMP) directory for the headers? Now I have to do > -Inew_imp/src which looks funny and would presumably change for any > distribution of IMP (since almost all of the headers in src need to be > installed in an include directory for anyone to write their own > restraints or use IMP through C++ and their names are too generic to > just into /usr/include). Thanks.
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. But the good news there is that we resolved those today, so I can do this tomorrow. Does anybody object to Daniel's suggestion?
If it's not the same, then perhaps you can point out the difference, because it looks the same to me. ;)
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.
Ben
> 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 :-)
Daniel Russel wrote: >> 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 :-)
You have your wish as of r519.
> 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 :-)
I agree, and that's exactly how Keren's impEM stuff currently works. But they won't do that unless they have examples. ;)
Ben
participants (2)
-
Ben Webb -
Daniel Russel