[bug#30259] [PATCH] gnu: octave: Add audio and Qt GUI support.

[ng0]

address@hidden transcribed 2.4K bytes:
> On Sat, 27 Jan 2018, Kei Kebreau <address@hidden> wrote:
> > address@hidden writes:
> >
> >> On Fri, 26 Jan 2018, Kei Kebreau <address@hidden> wrote:
> >>> address@hidden writes:
> >>>
> >>>> On Fri, 26 Jan 2018, address@hidden wrote:
> >>>>> On Fri, 26 Jan 2018, Kei Kebreau <address@hidden> wrote:
> >>>>>> * gnu/packages/maths.scm (octave)[inputs]: Add qscintilla, qt, 
> >>>>>> suitesparse,
> >>>>>> libsndfile, portaudio and alsa-lib.
> >>>>>> [native-inputs]: Add qttools.
> >>>>>> [arguments]: Add 'patch-qscintilla-library-name' phase.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Woo! Nice :) I've started work on the Qt GUI a while ago but
> >>>>> never finished it. Do you think we should split this into octave
> >>>>> and octave-qt (or octave-gui)? Qt is quiet huge and not everyone
> >>>>> will want this I think.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Building this now and getting back to you with results.
> >>>>>
> >> […]
> >>>> Build, compiled, installed, LGTM and works for me. At least the
> >>>> minimal basics I've tested.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Excellent! Thanks for testing this.
> >>>
> >>>> However I still think we should split it later on. I'm not sure
> >>>> if other systems just provide it in one piece or if they provide
> >>>> octave-cli, octave-qt, etc.
> >>>> In my scenario we don't have substitutes for Qt all the time and
> >>>> someone running a
> >>>> machine which isn't capable of building Qt wants to use octave.
> >>>
> >>> I agree that this package should be split. Should a split be made now
> >>> while we leave the lighter CLI-only Octave package available on master,
> >>> or should it be postponed until later on?
> >>>
> >>
> >> It could be done later on, but if you think it wouldn't be too
> >> much work you could do it now.
> >
> > Done, I think!
> >
> >> Ideally this would leave 'octave' as it is and add
> >> 'octave-whatever' ... octave-qt? Debian calls the package (with
> >> just the Qt Gui) "qtoctave". octave-* should be reserved for
> >> extensions (which we don't have right now), so maybe qtoctave
> >> would fit into our naming scheme?
> >>
> >>
> >>  / I think I'm going to switch the subscribed address once more,
> >>  now that I have proper filtering I don't need the server-side
> >>  filtering. /
> >
> > Can you (and/or any bystanders reading this) test these?
> >
> >
> >
> 
> LGTM.
> 
> qtoctave worked, the normal octave should be alright.
> 
> Thank you very much for the work on this.

Can someone push this? If nothing changed since the review I did, it's
good to go and just catching digital dust. Patch still applies iirc as
I build my active branch with it.
-- 
A88C8ADD129828D7EAC02E52E22F9BBFEE348588
https://n0.is