Re: Greetings from Fedora

[Thomas Weber]

Hi Jussi, 

On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 11:18:12PM +0200, Jussi Lehtola wrote:
> I was asked if we file octave related bugs to the upstream bug tracker.
> We get a lot of (automatic) bug reports related to Octave, but most of
> them are related purely to packaging (e.g. the hdf5 bug that I fixed a
> short time ago), or to other packages (a version of ATLAS compiled for
> the wrong processor). 

Yes, ATLAS is a never-ending source of fun.

> The bugs that are really in the source code itself we do try to file
> upstream, this is common practice in packaging.
> 
> Still, you might want to keep an eye on the bugs reported in Fedora as
> well. This you can do at https://bugzilla.redhat.com/ .

Is it possible to get a more specific URL, like
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/octave ? 
[... clicking through Bugzilla ...]

Are the following URL sufficient?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/buglist.cgi?product=Fedora&component=octave&resolution=---
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/buglist.cgi?product=Fedora&component=octave-forge&resolution=---


> If you're not aware of it already, a big change is on the verge of
> happening in Fedora. We are going to split the monolithic octave-forge
> package into individual packages. This has been mostly the work of Orion
> Poplawski, who has been working on a program to automatically construct
> spec files (the recipe for building the RPM), so that making and
> reviewing them is simpler. Still, the process will take quite some
> amount of work.

How are you handling the split? Splitting the monolithic release tarball
at build time or using the small source tarballs from Octave-Forge?
In Debian, we use the small source tarballs right now. 

You might want to have a look at the Makefile at
http://git.debian.org/?p=pkg-octave/octave-pkg-dev.git;a=blob_plain;f=octave-pkg.mk.in;hb=HEAD

While the targets are obviously Debian-specific, some code might be of
use to you -- like the extraction and running of tests for .m and .cc
files.

        Thomas