On 01/05/08 11:08 +0200, Thomas Weber wrote:
> On 18/04/08 11:25 +0200, Thomas Weber wrote:
> > package octave3.0
> > owner 420080 !
> > thanks
> >
> > Am Donnerstag, den 17.04.2008, 14:49 +0200 schrieb Rafael Laboissiere:
> > > * Thomas Weber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-04-17 12:57]:
> > >
> > > > The current consensus on this topic as discussed in pkg-octave-devel
> > > > seems like the following:
> > > >
> > > > 1) Merging the packages triggers a big installation, as all -dev
> > > > packages are brought into a system with the installation of
> > > > octave3.0-headers.
> > > > 2) pkg.m is not usable without these -dev packages.
> > > >
> > > > So, pkg.m should go into octave3.0-headers, just like mkoctfile.
> > > >
> > > > If there are no objections, we will target this for Octave's 3.0.1
> > > > release, which should happen in the near future.
> > >
> > > Agreed. Could you please do the changes in SVN?
> >
> > Will do.
>
> Okay, new problem. pkg() is called in /etc/octave.conf.
No comment for a while, so I'm planning to continue as stated below:
Close 420079 and 420080 without resolution.
We use pkg.m in octave3.0 for package loading (loading, not installation), so
we can't move it into octave3.0-headers. mkoctfile can't be moved into
octave3.0, because we need the development packages (fftw, blas, ..) and
their installation is triggered by octave3.0-header's installation.
Which leaves us with merging the package and I'm not happy with that:
installing octave would than get _lots_ of stuff onto your machine, people
might never use.
Thomas
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
