[Pkg-octave-devel] State of the Union

[Thomas Weber]

On 02/02/08 13:59 +0100, Rafael Laboissiere wrote:
> 1. Getting octave3.0 into testing
> =================================
> 
> I think we are stuck for now, unless an arm g++ guru can help us.

We are not alone on this, see
460419, 458745

Especially the first report (crashes before actually stepping into the
function) seems to describe our problem.

>    * Just wait until we migrate from g++ 4.1 into g++ 4.3 (see section 4.
>      below).  Perhaps the problem will magically disappear.

I don't think a new gcc suite will help here. However, maybe we are
lucky and hit a buildd were it works.

>     * All packages belonging to the DOG have been fixed.
>     * plplot-octave was also adapted to octave3.0 [8].      
>     * The shogun-octave package has been fixed [9].
>     * pfstools is still waiting to be fixed, although there is a patch
>       available [10].
>     * The maintainer of wims will make his package depend on the virtual
>       package "octave" [11].  This will be fine.

I thought the removal of octave2.9 means that also the "octave" package
will be dropped? Can we provide a package that actually doesn't exist in
the archive?

> In the meantime, Steve Langasek has filed a bug report with severity level
> "serious", complaining on the fact that octave3.0 provides octave2.9 and
> that this is bogus [12].  We agree with him and hope that everything will be
> okay after the removal of octave2.9.  We will then be able to completely
> drop octave2.9 from Debian and the Provides line from octave3.0.

Dropping the "Provides" for 2.9 is easy, but what about "Provides:
octave"? wims is about the only package that actually doesn't care which
version of Octave is installed (no .m files, no .oct files).

> Mathias Klose has formally requested that both octave3.0 [18] and octave2.1
> [19] use GCC 4.3 for lenny.

I understand his bugs in that we shouldn't depend on gcc-4.1 explicitly?

	Thomas