[Pkg-octave-devel] Lenny release goals for the DOG

Thomas Weber thomas.weber.mail at gmail.com
Sun Mar 2 19:24:32 UTC 2008

On 02/03/08 09:06 -0600, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote:
> Btw, I haven't been following the discussion in the mailing list, but
> why do we have that ungainly 3.0 in the package name? Will that go
> away for the lenny release, once we get rid of 2.9? Or will the octave
> dummy package simply point to 3.0?

The one bad thing about the "octave" package in its old form is: when do
we switch? If we let it point to the stable version always, it is pretty
useless. If we switch it to the development branch (3.1) during
development, other maintainers/developers will open a quarry in order to
have enough stones to throw at us.

Now, it might be the case that a software doesn't really care which
version of Octave it is using (if you have only trivial .m files, for
example). In this case, depending on "octave" is sufficient. Everybody
else decides on the version for himself, please.

In case someone wants to know: yes, we do have all of the above cases in
the archive. wims can come by with every Octave version, whereas
pfstools didn't work with the 2.9 series.


More information about the Pkg-octave-devel mailing list