Re: 2.9.11?

[Quentin Spencer]

John W. Eaton wrote:
> On 19-Apr-2007, Thomas Weber wrote:
>
> | Am Donnerstag, 19. April 2007 00:16 schrieb David Bateman:
> | > The biggest remaining issue for a testing release for me is the package
> | > manager. Till debian, fedora and MSVC builds sign off on the package
> | > manager I don't think 2.9.11 will be really considered as a testing
> | > release by the distributions..So it might be nice to check on the
> | > progress of the use of the package manager for these three, to at least
> | > avoid any hurried 2.9.12 release if possible.
> | 
> | A new Octave release is not a problem for Debian. We will currently stay with 
> | 2.9.9 in the testing part of the distribution, until we've figured out how to 
> | integrate the Octave package manager [OPM] with the distribution package 
> | manager (or, more precisely: how to use the OPM for creating the packages).
> | 
> | Some ideas are available at 
> | http://wiki.debian.org/OctavePackaging
>
> I have no objection to modifying pkg.m to make it easier for Debian,
> Fedora, or whoever to package Octave packages.  So maybe a good place
> to start is to decide what features you need to have so that it will
> be easy for you to build a package around one that uses pkg.m.
>
> Can we assume that you can run Octave when you are building the deb
> or RPM package?
>   

For Fedora, that is true, and I assume for Debian also. Building the 
current Fedora octave-forge package always required octave to be 
installed because octave-forge has mkoctfile as a build-time dependency, 
which implied a dependency on octave.

Quentin