running from build dir

[Chris Shoemaker]

On Wed, Dec 22, 2004 at 08:55:01AM -0500, Derek Atkins wrote:
> Chris Shoemaker <c.shoemaker at cox.net> writes:
> 
> > Would these two interests be compatible if the implementation were
> > different? or is it better to just 'make install' after every compile?
> 
> I just "make install" every time.  Note that if you only change
> source files (not headers) then you only need to make install
> in the directories you've changed rather than "make install" in
> the full source tree.  If nothing else it saves a bit of time.

I see.  That's a good tip.  I've been working as if this is also true
for "make".  Is that so?  I definitely need to find ways to save time.
Even on my fastest machine, compile/install cycles take almost 10
minutes.  :(  If it's possible, I'd like to improve this situation.

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 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.

>  Unfortunately, due to the way Scheme works, there's little we can
> do to completely solve this problem.  Gnucash needs to find its
> scheme files, so it needs to know where to look.

I'd like to understand this better.  I recognize the need to find the
guile executable, and have the environment all setup, but that's all
standard install issues.  Are there some subtle or unique
directory-finding requirements once the Scheme is being interpreted?
(My Scheme is rusty, but it's coming back to me.  I don't remember
ever before dealing with scripts running from multiple files - only
single file scheme scripts.)

-chris