Re: [octave:package-releases] #43 msh-1.0.7

[Carnë Draug]

On 4 July 2013 10:40, c. <address@hidden> wrote:
>
> On 4 Jul 2013, at 11:25, Marco <address@hidden> wrote:
>
>> 2) shouldn't dolfin be mentioned as build requirements on the DESCRIPTION 
>> file?
> How can it be marked as an OPTIONAL requirement?
>
> I don't want the DEBIAN packagers to jump in and say they will discard msh
> from their distribution because of the missing requirement ...

They won't discard it, they would just make it a dependency. You can
leave a note on the DESCRIPTION file saying that it's optional but
that would solve nothing. Would you rather have them distributing a
half-working binary? It needs the dolfin library to work. Just like
they don't distribute 30 different versions of Octave, built with
different combinations of Octave optional dependencies, they won't do
it for msh package either.

>> Also, I though those functions were going to be part of the new fem-dolfin 
>> package.
> fem-fenics has been preferred to fem-dolfin, fenics is a set of tools 
> including dolfin and ufl, as the package uses both it seems better to use the 
> collective name.

Sorry, what I meant was to say fem-fenics. Since dolfin is part of
fenics, shouldn't those functions belong there? Anyway, Marco has
already replied to it on the package release tracker.

Carnë