Re: thanks and rant

[Daniel J S. <dan...@ie...>]

Timoth=E9e Lecomte wrote:
> Timoth=E9e Lecomte wrote:
>=20
>>Daniel J Sebald wrote:
>> =20
>>
>>>Dr. Johannes Zellner wrote:
>>> =20
>>>   =20
>>>
>>>>in trm/post.trm there's a really ugly hardcoded path:
>>>>
>>>>#ifndef GNUPLOT_PS_DIR
>>>>#define GNUPLOT_PS_DIR "/usr/local/share/gnuplot/4.1/PostScript"
>>>>#endif
>>>>     =20
>>
>>(...)
>>
>>I don't have any opinion on what to do when GNUPLOT_PS_DIR is not=20
>>defined (ie when not using ./configure), the best is to make sure that=20
>>all custom makefile's do that properly (something else to do before 4.2=
=20
>>I think).
>> =20
>=20
> In fact this would be wrong for Windows and probably other platforms=20
> (OS/2 ?), where there are no standard filesystem directories. On these=20
> platforms, hardcoding a path at compile time is completely wrong.

Even in unix, propably not the correct method.  This sounds like an insta=
llation time configuration, something that might best be handled with con=
figuration file that gnuplot can search at startup.  In fact, one would t=
hink that something like autotools would have an automated process for de=
aling with such a thing, some macro that indicates a shared resource dire=
ctory to be configured when installed.

This is of some importance, because otherwise what we are saying is that =
from a distribution standpoint there could be dozens if not more unique b=
inaries of gnuplot floating about regardless of the configuration options=
 that the distributers might use.  Is that an issue.

Dan