Re: globally installed packages vs. relocatable Octave

[Juan Pablo Carbajal]

On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 10:10 AM, c. <address@hidden> wrote:
>
> On 6 Nov 2014, at 22:59, Juan Pablo Carbajal <address@hidden> wrote:
>
>> Are we porting pkg.m form here [1] to core? I will be wiling to help
>> if that is the case.
>> [1] 
>> https://bitbucket.org/carandraug/octave/branch/default?head=d670ed4e5ae64541056dec352af0901270a381c9
>>
>> This pkg.m is more modular than the current version.
>
> Juan Pablo,
>
> I haven't looked at the code in your repository
> for a long time but I remeber that it was definitely
> much more readable and easy to maintain than the
> current version of pkg.m
>
> On the other hand I vaguely recall there were quite a few
> missing features with respect to the current version.
> I don't remember what those missing features were though,
> do you?
>
> Could you make a list of what you think it would take
> to make the new pkg.m a viable replacement for the current
> one and how much time it would take to do so?
>
> c.

Ok, I will list the features in and the features missing in a different thread.
Thx.