[Pkg-octave-devel] Bug#463039: why does octave3.0 provide: octave2.9?

[Rafael Laboissiere]

* Thomas Weber <thomas.weber.mail at gmail.com> [2008-02-04 21:06]:

> I'd say we simply let octave2.9 die. I'm pretty confident people will find
> octave3.0 by themselves.
> 
> I don't consider the epoch to be that kind of a problem, but I don't want to
> continue with the virtual octave package. At one point, we probably will
> recommend switching to Octave 3.1. But I think users should make that switch
> consciously and not because they happen to have "octave" installed.
> 
> So, the virtual "octave" package should be dropped. Getting rid of the epoch
> is a bonus.

In my proposal, only the dummy octave2.9* packages would be created.
Dropping or not the virtual octave package is a separate issue.

Another solution for the problem is just letting octave2.9 die, as you
wrote. It would be nice though to have users being automatically upgraded
from octave2.9 to octave3.0.  For that we would need the dummy octave2.9*
packages and the epoch.

So, what is your final word?

I would call for a vote on this issue, but I am afraid there will be not a
lot of voters among the members of the DOG :-(

-- 
Rafael