[Pkg-octave-devel] New release of octave-forge

[Colin Ingram]

On 2/3/06, folajimi <folajimi at speakeasy.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Feb 2006, Colin Ingram wrote:
>
> > On 2/2/06, folajimi <folajimi at speakeasy.net> wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2 Feb 2006, Rafael Laboissiere wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > It seems that I have been out of the loop. What happened with the v2.1 -> v2.9
> > > migration effort?
> > >
> > > JA
> > >
> >
> > It is still on going.  Currently octave-forge doesn't build against
> > 2.9 but a fix for this was submitted to the CVS yesterday I believe
> > and a new release is imminent.  The plan I have right now is to 1st
> > get the new release out.  Then move forward with the 2.9 transition.
>
> Are you referring to a new release of v2.1, or does the fix only apply to v2.9?
>
> > Rafael recently pointed out a thread [1] on debian-devel which
> > discussed using CDBS to do the double configure double build thing
> > that we would like to do with octave-forge.  I think there are some
> > packages mentioned to look at for examples.  If you want to start
> > looking into that and maybe getting some of the necessary code in the
> > 2.9transition branch then after I finish the new release I will port
> > the changes to the branch and then we can start testing.  A second
> > thought is that we could get the necessary frame work to do the duel
> > compilation into this current release (trunk) and then add the 2.9
> > specific stuff for the next release (branch) or something along those
> > lines.  Are you game?
> >
> > [1] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-octave-devel/2006-January/001118.html
>
> If it is alright with you, I would prefer the second approach you proposed.
> However, I could use some clarification about what needs to be done. Is it fair
> to assume that by "necessary frame work", you are referring to the items that
> are _common_ to both versions of octave-forge? If that is the case, then all I
> would have to do afterward is add the items specific to v2.9 to this framework?
>
> I would like to get started today or by Saturday afternoon.
>
> Regards,
> JA
>

I have not looked at the solutions presented in the example packages
given in the above mentioned thread.  So this is what I suggest. 
First off I can now build an octave-forge package against octave-2.9.4
using today's CVS of octave-forge and some minor changes to
debian/rules.  I will submit these changes to the 2.9 transition
branch.  Note this will not work with the current released sources of
octave-forge but only the cvs.  So check out the today's CVS and the
branch debian files and you can begin work as we outlined previously. 
Then I would go review the example packages to see how they tackled
the problem and maybe bring some of examples of what we can do back to
the list.  If there are things that can be incorporated into this next
release of octave-forge for the 2.1 octave branch I will incorporate
them.  I will be working on this tomorrow as well so you can reach me
on jabber with your findings.  The current release of octave-forge is
broken for both 2.1 and 2.9. I am going to prepare a debian release
with the 2006.01.28 sources with patches from the cvs to fix the 2.1
and 2.9 problems.  Having this release should help us move forward on
the 2.9 transition work.  (since currently it isn't even possible to
build against 2.9 at all)

Colin