[Pkg-octave-devel] Re: [OctDev] compiling o-f against 2.1.72

[David Bateman]

Quentin Spencer wrote:

> Rafael Laboissiere wrote:
>
>> * Michael Creel <michael.creel at uab.es> [2005-11-23 15:46]:
>>
>>  
>>
>>> I have had some trouble getting o-f CVS to compile against Octave 
>>> 2.1.72. Has anyone else had problems? Michael
>>>   
>>
>>
>> This is a belated reply but, indeed, compilation of octave-forge fails
>> miserably in my Debian unstable system with the latest version of 
>> octave.
>>
>> Question to the octave-forge crew: are there any plans to release a new
>> version of octave-forge compatible with Octave 2.1.72?
>>  
>>
>
> I had just been wondering the same thing. As far as I can tell, it 
> looks like we've reached a point where it's time to branch 
> octave-forge. The current aging release of octave-forge compiles with 
> octave 2.1.72, but not 2.9.4. The CVS doesn't compile with 2.9.4, and 
> apparently (I haven't tried it) not with 2.1.72 either. It doesn't 
> compile with 2.9.4 because the sparse stuff conflicts with the sparse 
> stuff that's now in octave 2.9.x, but it compiles if the sparse 
> directory is disabled.

NOINSTALL in main/sparse fixes this

> Furthermore, there are some functions like print.m that have been 
> included in octave that are no longer necessary in octave-forge. I 
> think octave-forge needs a little house cleaning and a new release, 
> perhaps two: a 2.9.x compatible branch and a 2.1.x compatible branch. 
> Has anyone kept track of what has been added to octave that can be 
> removed from octave-forge? I'm not sufficiently familiar with CVS to 
> know how to create branches. How does one go about doing that?
>
There are some examples in main/miscellaneous/Makefile of some 
conditionally compiled. There is also regexp.cc that needs to be updated 
to the octave CVS syntax that is compatiable with matlab in octave forge 
and disabled from 2.9.5 on.. I'd suggest going this path rather than 
seperate 2.1 and 2.9 releases, as I believe a 2.9.x release marked as 
testing hopefully should be that far away. At that point octave-forge 
should be cleaned and then converted to the new package system.

The admin/make_index script gives information about shadowed functions 
in octave and octave_forge and can be used to find the migrated files.

> I ought to raise one further question: what's the future of 
> octave-forge? It seems like the new package system will result in it 
> eventually going away, with things either being absorbed into octave 
> or into smaller, more manageable packages. Until then, who's in charge 
> of octave-forge? It seems like Paul doesn't have the time he used to 
> for this--does it make sense to designate some other project leader(s) 
> (I am not volunteering)?

I'd like to see at least one more release of octave-forge, and more if 
2.9.x doesn't pass into testing some time soon. I'm definitely not 
volonteering either... My main reason for a desire for an octave-forge 
release is so that I can build a MingW release against a fixed 
octave-forge release rather than the CVS. I'd like at least one major 
change to octave-forge prior to that, as I'd like octave-forge to use 
the autoload function if it is available to reduce the size of the mingw 
release I'm making.

Cheers
David

-- 
David Bateman                                David.Bateman at motorola.com
Motorola Labs - Paris                        +33 1 69 35 48 04 (Ph) 
Parc Les Algorithmes, Commune de St Aubin    +33 1 69 35 77 01 (Fax) 
91193 Gif-Sur-Yvette FRANCE

The information contained in this communication has been classified as: 

[x] General Business Information 
[ ] Motorola Internal Use Only 
[ ] Motorola Confidential Proprietary