running from build dir

[Chris Shoemaker]

On Wed, Dec 22, 2004 at 12:07:40PM -0500, Derek Atkins wrote:
> 
> Yes, this is true for "make" as well.  So long as you only change .c
> files you can just type 'make' and 'make install' in the directories
> you've changed.  If you only change .scm files then you only need
> 'make install.'  HOWEVER if you change ANY .h files then you must
> recompile the whole tree.
> 
Ok.

> > I completely abandoned gnucash developement a few months ago because my
> > machine (300Mhz) just wasn't up to it.  It was like watching grass grow.  Now,
> > I have a much faster machine,(2GHz!) and I'd like to start back up,
> > but I'd still like to decrease cycle times.  (Maybe I'm just impatient :)
> 
> I'd vote for impatient.  OTOH 300MHz is like 5-year-old technology, so
> I'm surprised you could even get a modern-enough OS to run modern
> gnucash!

Actually, I _run_ gnucash just fine on the 300MHz machine, and
Firefox, and emacs, and lots more.  It's fine also for devel work on
console apps.  All on Fedora Core 3.  It's not _snappy_, but it's not
too bad.  But, obviously, gnucash is not your average sized project.

> 
> > I like the idea of running out of my build dir, to avoid "make
> > install".  I guess it kind of works the way I have it.  Other than the
> > obvious limitation on CWD, do you think this is a reasonable devel
> > setup?  It _seems_ to work.
> 
> I'm not against it, but it could run into problems with load-path
> issues.

Ok, well, it doesn't actually work as well as I thought (I was
mistakenly using the installed files).  But it's not scm load-path
problems (yet), it's

 filename = gnc_gnome_locate_ui_file("gnc-main-window-ui.xml");

not finding the file.  Path issues of another sort, I guess.  I'm
looking into it.
 
-chris