Re: Requirements for releasing the STK toolbox as an Octave forge package ?

[c.]

On 24 Feb 2014, at 17:20, Carnë Draug <address@hidden> wrote:

>> As a user, I prefer when I can browse the source tree and understand from
>> its structure how the toolbox/package/module/... is organized. So, yes, I
>> know that I could put everything into a single directory, but I would really
>> prefer to keep the original layout if possible (I see that the LTFAT package
>> has subdirectories, for instance, so it shouldn't be a problem).
>> 
>> Plus, the packaging script would be more delicate to write, since not
>> everything must be flattened out (for instance, we have private
>> subdirectories, class subdirectories, and even class subdirectories that
>> contain private subdirectories that contain MEX-files...).
>> 
>> Of course, if it turns out that this is the only to make it work, I will do
>> that.
> 

No, you don't need to change the way you organize your code to have a flat 
directory structure, other packages are organized into subdirectories and
you cand copy the way it is done for example from the package "ocs":

http://sourceforge.net/p/octave/code/HEAD/tree/trunk/octave-forge/extra/ocs/PKG_ADD

> And if Octave ever changes how it
> manages packages internally, it will suddenly break. You are relying
> on things which, albeit stable, are undocumented and not meant to be
> used.

The use of PKG_ADD / PKG_DEL _IS_ documented. If you think the use of those 
files for defining a package substructure needs to be better detailed, 
documentation
patches would be welcome. 

Julien, maybe after you try this out you can prepare
a patch to explain this better in the manual?

c.