Re: Is the 3.8 "release ” official?

[c.]

On 31 Dec 2013, at 10:34, PhilipNienhuis <address@hidden> wrote:

> "Branch point" ?
> There is already http://hg.octave.org/mxe-octave
> 
> I can't vouch for OSX binaries, but these days making a Windows binary
> installer merely requires a minute or so of editing and a few mouse
> clicks/commands followed by a ~2.5 hours coffee break (or time slot for
> useful other work) while the build process proceeds, thanks to the work of
> a.o., the two Johns, Michael & Anirudha on MXE.
> So that has already been tackled.

I'm not sure what Mike referred to was merely the process of building the 
binaries.

Making the binary release itself on OSX takes similar amount of time and effort,
just a few macports commands and a couple of hours wait for the install to 
complete.

But there are a few OSX specific bugs that have taken a lot of time to be hunted
down and aren't fixed yet, the OSX binaries I am building include workaround 
patches
to avoid crashes related to those bugs, but these patches need to disable some 
GUI 
features (e.g. FLTK, custom fonts). 

If we hadn't been trying to fix those before the release, 3.8.0 could have been 
out 
months ago. And probably the OSX binaries would also have been available sooner 
as it 
is easier to get help from the downstream packagers when a new stable release 
is out.


> The more relevant or even urgent issues are where to put binaries up, and
> what should be included (in terms of OF packages, external dependency libs,
> etc.).
> This has been asked before but answers/opinions haven't come yet, while IMO
> now is really the time to decide. Once there's agreement the rest is just a
> breeze.
> 
> Is this to be left up to the few Windows developers/contributors? (and
> similarly, to the OSX builders for OSX binaries?)

The current OSX installer is very (~700MB) large (it might be shrinked, but 
this takes
more work than I'm able do spend on it at the moment), so one issue to be taken
into account is also the cost of bandwidth.

> Perhaps a "minimal" Windows binary (=just Octave itself, no or minimal
> packages) on Octave-Forge (can perhaps even be done today), and a more
> luxurious one (OF packages etc.) accompanied by a donation hint somewhere
> else (could wait a a little while)?

Wouldn't it be a bit strange to have Octave without Forge packages distributed 
on Octave Forge and a version with Forge packages distributed elsewhere?

> Philip

c.