[Pkg-octave-devel] Filing ITPs for the octave-forge pkgs

[Thomas Weber]

On 27/02/08 17:22 +0100, Rafael Laboissiere wrote:
> As soon as the preliminary tests with octave-pkg-dev for building
> octave-forge packages will be done, I will file ITP bug reports.  I would
> like to know what you think about two things:
> 
> First, is the name "octave-pkg-dev" appropriate?  If you dislike this name
> and have a better proposal, say it now or never.
> 
> Second, would it be okay to file ITPs for all available octave-forge
> packages? I think this should be okay. There are obvious exceptions like
> octave-forge-bundle, windows, arpack, and spline-gcvspl.  I wrote a script
> (now in SVN) to automate the task.

Just to be clear on this:

1.) I don't know Perl and don't intend to learn it. It feels strange to me
that we need a scripting language in order to provide packages for a
different scripting language (what would you think if the Perl group used
Python for their scripts?).

2.) get-oct-pkg-src.pl has 45 lines of Perl code in order to download a
package. The very first line of that code is already a mystery to me. Octave's watch file has 2 lines, one being the watch file's version.

3.) octave-pkg-dev.mk.in has about 30 lines of code. I believe this means we
are stretching the *C* in CDBS (that actually stands for "common") quite a bit.


With that said, I'm fine with the current setup. Just don't expect me to ever
touch it -- I simply don't understand it.

  Thomas