[GRASS-dev] Re: [GRASS-SVN] r49124 -
hamish_b at yahoo.com
Sat Nov 19 01:36:31 EST 2011
> > - bin/ and script/ do not really belong in
> > GRASS_ADDON_PATH,because GRASS_ADDON_PATH was
> > not meant to be GRASS_ADDON_BASE.
> no worries here, just you reverted something
> which was working.
It was an unneeded work around for another problem
that had since been fixed.
> Your revert just made things more complicated
> Nothing else.
basically what happened is that when you hardcoded
~/.grass6/addons/ as the default destination it
broke the test which created the symlinks, and so
the built modules could not be found in the PATH.
Your change to init.sh then tried to work around
this problem by adding bin/ and script/ into the
In concert with r49124 I had also fixed the
g.extension test so that the symlink creation
worked again, and so the work-around hack was no
longer needed. thus the revert.
Maybe I could have explained that better before, but
AFAIK now everything should function ok.
as mentioned earlier, and in the commit log message,
there's no need to _install_ to bin/ and script/,
so instead of symlinks my (grass6) plan is in future
to install them all into the GRASS_ADDON_PATH dir
directly, and then we can skip the symlink work-
around, simplifying things further, and hopefully
making everyone happy.
I just want to confirm that all is good in the
devbr6 version of g.extension.sh and backport the
latest changes to establish a known-good delta
before making those new invasive changes to this
rather delicate module.
Please note that GRASS_ADDON_PATH as "set additional
path(s) to local GRASS modules" (ie add to $PATH)
has been a part of the codebase for 10 years. I was
surprised it had been that long, but that's what
the commit log says.. time flies like an arrow,
fruit flies like a banana. The re-tasking of it by
g.extension is a very modern phenomenon, and if we
can make g.extension cleanly support the established
expectation of how it works, we should do that.
More information about the grass-dev