Re: Building Octave Statically (and without graphics)

[Jason Riedy]

And John W. Eaton writes:
> If you build Octave this way, is it OK to completely disable the
> ability to use .oct and .mex functions?  Or do you want some (easy)
> way to be able to do something like put a bunch of .cc files (that
> would normally be used to build a set of .oct files) in a directory
> and have them built as part of Octave?

The ideal would be to drop source files somewhere and have them built,
but this is all wish-list stuff.  Just being able to build Octave
statically is a good start, assuming all the relevant system libraries
are available in static form.  At that point, modifying src/Makefile.in
and crew isn't so bad.

But at least one system I have in mind requires cross-compilation (Cray
XT5), so this may all be pointless...

I don't know how long the pendulum stay on the "special-purpose node"
side, so I don't know if it's worth serious effort.  Having to build
magic debugging tools for each special-purpose platform is such a huge
waste of the expensive time (developer cost >> machine cost) that I
expect something close enough to general-purpose nodes will return
shortly.

> I think that might be possible, but would require more work for mex
> files since they all use the same function name (mexFunction).

I don't use mex files, so I don't care.  ;)  But I imagine other
users would like them...

Jason