[Pkg-octave-devel] Slave update-alternatives [was: Re: Bug#383149: tried purging then reinstalling octave2.9 package]

[Rafael Laboissiere]

* John W. Eaton <jwe at bevo.che.wisc.edu> [2006-08-17 16:39]:

> That's better than no change, but it will still get people who assume
> that by doing
> 
>   update-alternatives --config octave
> 
> they have selected a new and consistent version of Octave and it's
> associated tools when they haven't really done that.  Mixing versions
> won't work properly, so it is a potential source of confusion.

Agreed.

> How big is the octave-headers package compared to octave now?  On my
> amd64 system, octave2.9 is about 7.5M and octave2.9-headers is just
> 341k, so at this point, would it really hurt if we always included the
> headers with the main package?

This is a sensible suggestion.  I am reluctant to implementing it now
because it will imply an overhaul of all the Octave-related packages in
Debian.  We cannot afford doing it right now because the next release of
Debian is scheduled for December.  Let us revisit the issue post-etch.

-- 
Rafael