Linking in revised modules

GRASS GIS GRASS GIS developer
1

Another beginner's question, I'm afraid. We have GRASS as a production system,
serving multiple users. I didn't install it, although I have read the relevant
docs. I'm wanting to tinker with a couple of modules, but the systems manager
is naturally concerned about data protection. He has basically insisted that I
take a copy and recompile. This is an easy solution, but expensive on disk
space. It seems to me that in principle I ought to be able to use the link
script to substitute the necessary modules and then give the user an alternate
command to invoke the revised system. Can someone please confirm whether this
is possible and maybe flag some of the anticipated problems?

--
Loughborough University of Technology tel : (0509)263171 ext 4164
Computer-Human Interaction Research Centre fax : (0509)610815
Leicestershire LE11 3TU e-mail - (Janet):C.V.Copas@uk.ac.lut
G Britain (Internet):C.V.Copas%lut.ac.uk@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk

2

Another beginner's question, I'm afraid. We have GRASS as a production system,
serving multiple users. I didn't install it, although I have read the relevant
docs. I'm wanting to tinker with a couple of modules, but the systems manager

just copy the entire directory of what you want to tinker with. For example,
cp -r $GISBASE/src/raster/r.los mydirectory

Edit the Gmakefile so that the binary gets a different name (and
directory), then tinker away (compile with gmake4.0). For example, the
Gmakefile should have a line that looks like:

$(BIN_MAIN_CMD)/$(PGM): $(LIST) $(GISLIB) $(DISPLAYLIB) $(SEGMENTLIB)
        $(CC) $(LDFLAGS) -o $@ $(LIST) $(DISPLAYLIB) $(GISLIB) $(SEGMENTLIB)

change this to read

$(PGM): $(LIST) $(GISLIB) $(DISPLAYLIB) $(SEGMENTLIB)
        $(CC) $(LDFLAGS) -o $@ $(LIST) $(DISPLAYLIB) $(GISLIB) $(SEGMENTLIB)

Also, change the line that defines PGM to avoid all confusion. Unless
you add a feature that requires another library, gmake4.0 should work
fine for compiling. gmake4.0 should be accessible just like the grass4.0
script. If not, complain to your sysadmin.

is naturally concerned about data protection. He has basically insisted that I
take a copy and recompile. This is an easy solution, but expensive on disk

I don't see how this is an issue unless he's wanting to keep a virgin copy
of the grass source. If he doesn't want you to touch *data* (as opposed
to code), it should be protected.

space. It seems to me that in principle I ought to be able to use the link
script to substitute the necessary modules and then give the user an alternate
command to invoke the revised system. Can someone please confirm whether this
is possible and maybe flag some of the anticipated problems?

--Darrell McCauley, Purdue University