[Pkg-octave-devel] octave-pkg-dev and dual builds
Thomas Weber
thomas.weber.mail at gmail.com
Sun Mar 2 16:07:05 UTC 2008
On 02/03/08 15:55 +0100, Rafael Laboissiere wrote:
> * Thomas Weber <thomas.weber.mail at gmail.com> [2008-03-02 10:43]:
>
> > On 01/03/08 11:06 +0100, Rafael Laboissiere wrote:
> > point on onwards it was only possible to build with 2.9.
>
> Yes, you are right. This is the reason why we had separate octave2.1-forge
> and octave2.9-forge upstream tarballs.
Yes, but if we had only one octave-audio source package (building two
octave3.0-audio and octave3.1-audio), we would need to disable the
octave3.0 build at some point (or using different source packages).
So, I'm for avoiding dual builds.
> > I don't think there needs to be lots of discussion. If we indeed need a
> > new naming scheme, dpkg will remove the files from the old paths and the
> > new deb packages will install into the new path.
> >
> > So, from the installation part, I don't see much of a problem.
>
> I was also thinking about the pacakge naming scheme. Should we call all the
> octave-forge packages octave3.0-something now?
Eh, I don't think we will be able to handle -forge packages for both 3.0
and 3.1. Forge consists of 40+ packages, already increasing our package
number by a *factor* of 5. Doubling this again with a 3.0 and 3.1
diversion is out of the question.
By the way, our mass ITP has started a massive discussion about
packaging everything under the sun on debian-devel.
Thomas
More information about the Pkg-octave-devel
mailing list