octave-maintainers
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: globally installed packages vs. relocatable Octave


From: John W. Eaton
Subject: Re: globally installed packages vs. relocatable Octave
Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2014 16:24:29 -0500
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/24.5.0

On 11/07/2014 04:10 AM, c. 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?

I guess there will now be some work to merge the two versions because there have probably been changes in core Octave that are independent of the forked version of pkg.m.

jwe





reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]