octave-maintainers
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: [Octave Forge] Octave 4.0 call for packages


From: Philip Nienhuis
Subject: Re: [Octave Forge] Octave 4.0 call for packages
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2015 14:32:21 -0700 (PDT)

JohnD wrote
>> Message: 1
>> Date: Sun, 5 Apr 2015 09:44:25 -0700 (PDT)
>> From: Philip Nienhuis <

> address@hidden

> >
>> To: 

> octave-maintainers@

>> Subject: Re: [Octave Forge] Octave 4.0 call for packages
>> Message-ID: <

> address@hidden

>>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>> 
>> Mike Miller-4 wrote
>> > Dear Octave Forge maintainers,
>> >
>> > The first 4.0 release candidate has been out for some time now and we
>> > don't expect any further changes to impact Octave Forge package
>> > compatibility. At this time we would like to call for Octave Forge
>> > package maintainers to release updated versions of packages if needed
>> > that will build and work with the coming Octave release.
>> >
>> > For informational purposes, the current released versions of the
>> > following packages fail to build properly with the first release
>> > candidate:
>> >
>> >  * communications
>> >  * control
>> >  * dicom
>> >  * image
>> >  * odepkg
>> >  * windows
>> 
>> Not being able to be built is one thing; but some packages are wholly or
> partly
>> incompatible or will break things if installed in a too new Octave
> release. As a
>> result user code may fail without any clue that an old OF package is the
> cause.
>> 
>> E.g., general-1.3.4 overloads inputParser with outdated code. One
> consequence
>> is that some OF linear-algebra functions won't work properly if
>> general-1.3.4 is loaded.
>> Another PITA is the java package; we've had recurrent questions in the
> help ML
>> from users trying to install it in 3.8.2+ specfun still overloads
> erfcinv(), expint()
>> and ellipj().
>> 
>> I sometimes think it may be a good thing to renew some existing OF
>> package
>> releases with the only change being a maximum Octave version check, so
> that
>> unwary users at least have a warning that the package is incompatible
>> with
> the
>> Octave version at hand.
>> 
>> Philip
>> 
> 
> Someone asked a couple of weeks ago about what the selection criteria was
> for packages added to the installer.
> 
> I believe it started off mainly as ones that were considered 'commonly
> used
> ones'
> 
> In the past months, I also added several in the instances where they
> required patching in order to install in windows, OR required dependencies
> in order to compile.
> 
> So to the question ... Are we planning on adding as many packages as we
> can
> to the install, a select set (and if so what ones?) 

Yes you did a lot of work on OF packages that maybe should have been done by
package maintainers.

As to the question:
I'd vote for actively maintained packages plus the ones you've patched in
MXE.

Packages that shouldn't  be included comprise those that haven't seen a
release in -say- 3 years and packages overloading core Octave functions with
outdated code.

Philip




--
View this message in context: 
http://octave.1599824.n4.nabble.com/Octave-Forge-Octave-4-0-call-for-packages-tp4669204p4669648.html
Sent from the Octave - Maintainers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.



reply via email to

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