Re: Unmaintained packages - becoming a maintainer?

[octave]

> Le 21/05/2015 07:15, address@hidden a écrit :
>> I've got as far as setting up a Jenkins build and writing a bit of blog
>> about it here:http://www.neilhopcroft.com  ...which I hope shows at
>> least
>> a little bit of interest in the project.
>
> Hello Neil,
>
> Very interesting.
>
> Having regularly updated reports on the status of Octave packages would
> be great. Even better would be to have some code coverage statistics
> associated to the unit tests, but we're not there yet.

Profiling coverage from current tests is another thing on my list of
things to do, but it seems to me that getting tests for the currently
untested files would be the first thing to do.

> In the same
> spirit, you should look at the recent effort by Oliver Heimlich:
>
> http://wiki.octave.org/Octave-Forge#GNU_Octave_4.0_compatibility_assessment.

That page covers some of the same ground I am looking at, Olivers page
should be considered definitive at the moment, while any of my results are
a work-in-progress.

> Now, as one of the maintainer of the stk package, I have some questions
> for you:
>
> 1) In your post "Octave Packages CI build dependencies
> <http://neilhopcroft.com/octave-packages-ci-build-dependencies/>", you
> report "Build error" for stk, but you don't provide the version of stk
> (nor the version of Octave) that you have tested. Could you please tell
> me more about this "Build error"? A release was made very recently
> (2.3.0), could you try it and see if the build error is still there?

I see this:
Building /usr/share/tomcat7/.jenkins/workspace/octave-packages/stk
package is missing file: DESCRIPTION
error: called from 'verify_directory' in file
/usr/share/tomcat7/.jenkins/workspace/octave/scripts/pkg/private/verify_directory.m
near line 30, column 7

...I haven't investigated yet, I know that a number of the package build
errors I see are because my build isn't set up properly yet, I'm trying to
fix any of those errors I can.

> 2) In your post "Current state of unmaintained octave packages
> <http://neilhopcroft.com/current-state-of-unmaintained-octave-packages/>"
> you
> report stk as an unmaintained package, which it is not. What is the
> reason for this classification?

Sorry, I think it got there by accident, probably because it has a build
error in my current setup. I list it as maintained here:
http://neilhopcroft.com/octave-packages-test-results/

> Please email this list as soon as you post new results on your blog,
> results of this kind are obviously of great interest for the OF community.

Once I've got the packages build a bit more complete I'll start posting
any significant changes to the test results.

Who else is running a CI build out there? And what are they seeing?

Neil