Hi Miles, On Tue, Oct 09, 2007 at 11:14:04AM +0900, Miles Bader wrote: > Given that most of the stuff in pfstools doesn't have any connection > with octave, it's a bit silly that octave gets dragged in as a > dependency -- octave is a huge package and in my experience often has > packaging problems[*].
> Ideally, the octave-related stuff should be a separate package, and > suggested/recommended by the pfstools main package. I think "suggested", > as octave support is more a "nice thing", and not needed for what I > think are typical uses of pfstools (in my case, hdr format conversion, > tonemapping, environment map format conversion). Hum, I guess you're right. I added the dependency to octave because a couple of PFS tools are really octave scripts. Given that they are not required for "everyday use", I will weaken the dependency to a recommendation/suggestion or even move the scripts to the already existing "octave-pfstools" package (which currently contains octave bindings to PFS only). I prefer the former (unless you give a good reason to prefer the latter) as those scripts are actually PFS tools and not part of the octave bindings. I'm not quite sure about recommend vs suggest octave, but I currently tend to agree with you that a suggestion is more appropriate - I will think about it again (need some more coffee before that) ;-) Thanks for the pointer. Cheers, Sebastian -- Sebastian "tokkee" Harl +++ GnuPG-ID: 0x8501C7FC +++ http://tokkee.org/ Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. -- Benjamin Franklin
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
