[Pkg-octave-devel] octave-pkg-dev_0.6.0_amd64.changes REJECTED

[Joerg Jaspert]

>> rejected, for now.
>> Why does this need a new package and can't go into an existing one?
> I think you are talking about octave-pkg-rebuild, which is the new package
> created from the octave-pkg-dev source.

I am.

> This package is intended to be a dependency for all packages providing
> Octave add-ons (as the Octave Forge packages).

> I decided to create a separate package for it in order to avoid pulling
> unnecessary dependencies.  Had I included the octave-pkg-rebuild into
> octave-pkg-dev, the octave3.0-headers package would become also a
> dependency, pulling several unnecessary lib*-dev packages at install time.

Then the file should go into an existing package where everything has to
depend on anyway.

> If you have any suggestion about another way of doing this, I would love to
> hear from you.  Better, join the discussion in the thread in
> pkg-octave-devel [1].  BTW, Thomas Weber already suggested to include the
> functionality of octave-pkg-rebuild into octave3.0 and I explained why I
> think this is not a good idea.

Your reply to his suggestion was:

>> That could be a solution too, but I think it is preferable to keep all the
>> code relative to Octave pkg management inside a single source package,
>> namely octave-pkg-dev.  This would avoid spread of code and synchronization
>> problems in the future.

This is code related to the installation of octave add ons. So it IMO does
have a place in $whatever-is-the-central-octave-package.
Sorry, but I chose to stay with the rejection of that package.

-- 
bye, Joerg
AM: Whats the best way to find out if your debian/copyright is correct?
NM: Upload package into the NEW queue.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 196 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-octave-devel/attachments/20080910/76d4cefb/attachment.pgp