[Pkg-octave-devel] Lenny is out, time for work

[Thomas Weber]

Am Mittwoch, den 18.02.2009, 19:26 +0100 schrieb Rafael Laboissiere:
> * Thomas Weber <thomas.weber.mail at gmail.com> [2009-02-18 16:56]:
> 
> > Am Mittwoch, den 18.02.2009, 09:06 -0600 schrieb Jordi Gutiérrez
> > Hermoso:
> > > 2009/2/16 Thomas Weber <thomas.weber.mail at gmail.com>:
> > > > That means removal request for
> > > [snip]
> > > >        octaviz
> > > 
> > > I understand why the others have to go, and although I also understand
> > > octaviz is abandoned upstream, do we have to get rid of it? It's not
> > > exceptionally buggy, and I personally still have use for it. Has it
> > > been difficult to maintain?
> > 
> > It takes longer to compile than Octave itself. Apart from that, no, it
> > isn't too difficult to maintain. I wouldn't bet for it to compile
> > against 3.2, though. 
> 
> If it compiles against octave3.0, perhaps we should keep it in squeeze and
> remove it insqueeze+1, unless upstream development starts again.  Of course,
> I am making the assumption that octave3.0 will only be dropped in squeeze+1.
> We might adopt the same policy as regards the other packages that Thomas
> listed earlier in this thread, except for octave2.1 and octave2.1-forge,
> which we decided to drop in lenny+1, a long time ago.

I want to get rid of octplot explicitely. Shai is working on Octave
core, so octplot should go and people should help with Octave instead,
if they are missing something.

inline-octave works only with 2.1, doesn't it?

Octaviz provides some pretty unique functionality and I consider it sad
that there's no upstream for it, so it's pretty easy beating me into
keeping it :)

	Thomas