Re: [Octave Forge] Octave 4.0 call for packages

[John Donoghue]

On 04/11/2015 12:00 PM, address@hidden wrote:
> Message: 1
> Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2015 08:40:24 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Philip Nienhuis<address@hidden>
> To:address@hidden
> Subject: Re: [Octave Forge] Octave 4.0 call for packages
> Message-ID:<address@hidden>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> John Donoghue-2 wrote
> > >On 04/11/2015 08:19 AM,
> > >octave-maintainers-request@
> > >  wrote:
> > > >>Message: 5
> > > >>Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2015 14:07:14 +0200
> > > >>From: Oliver Heimlich&lt;
> > >oheim@
> > >&gt;
> > > >>To:
> > >octave-maintainers@
> > > >>Subject: Re: [Octave Forge] Octave 4.0 call for packages
> > > >>Message-ID:<
> > >55290E72.5090404@
> > > >>
> > > >>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
> > > >>
> > > >>On 11.04.2015 11:56, Oliver Heimlich wrote:
> > > > > >>> >On 11.04.2015 03:25, Mike Miller wrote:
> > > > > > > >>>> >>Would you mind sharing the test failures you are seeing? Either as
> > > > > >>>>bug
> > > > > > > >>>> >>reports against each package or a summary log file sent to the list
> > > > > >>>>or
> > > > > > > >>>> >>posted somewhere. Full output would be most helpful as many
> > > > > >>>>developers
> > > > > > > >>>> >>are unable to test on Windows.
> > > > > > > >>>> >>
> > > > > > > >>>> >>Thanks,
> > > > > >>> >
> > > > > >>> >I am going to put the results into our wiki [1] as a table. I can put
> > > > > >>> >the test logs on a private website and link to them in the table. Then,
> > > > > >>> >we can collect references to existing bug reports/patches in a
> > > > > >>> >structured way. This should simplify the assessment of all packages
> > > > > >>> >together. And it might help to sort out deprecated packages.
> > > >>You can find the results in the wiki:
> > > >>http://wiki.octave.org/Octave-Forge#GNU_Octave_4.0_compatibility_assessment
> > > >>
> > > >>The wiki contains a link to my test logs from Win7.
> > > >>
> > > >>So far, there are 13 packages that seem fit, 10 with bug reports or
> > > >>known fixes. Many where I am unsure about their current state. Please
> > > >>update the status of packages that you know better than I do.
> > > >>
> > >Nice table!!
> > >I added columns for win32 - as yet unpopulated
> Why would there be differences between 32 and 64 bit Windows as regards
> OF-packages compatibility with 32-bit Octave?
>
> I'd rather expect quite a few differences between 32- and 64-bit versions of
> Octave itself (obviously the latter will only run on Win64).
>
> Philip

There are some differences, whether from the fact of being Win32 vs 
Win64 or not?

Should the results of a octave 64 bit version also be posted