[Pkg-octave-devel] Fwd: qtoctave 0.9.1

[Thomas Weber]

Hi, 

On Sun, May 09, 2010 at 08:06:52AM -0500, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote:
> I emailed upstream about what he thinks we should do with the extra
> packages, and this is what he replied. My translation into English
> and some commentary is below it:
> 
<snip>
> ------------------ ENGLISH FOLLOWS --------------------------------
> 
> Hi, I'm glad to hear from you.
> 
> With respect to the "tangential" projects... There are several that
> should go in the same package as QtOctave or depend upon it. The rest
> are obsolete and I keep them around in case someone is using them.
> 
> These are the projects that should be with QtOctave:
> 
>      - simplercs
>      - qtoctave_pkg
>      - qtinfo
> 
> I wrote Qtinfo to get rid of the dependencies on HTML files, since you
> guys told me that they made life complicated. Qtinfo should be with
> QtOctave and not independent, since it has a very complex command line
> that doesn't make sense outside of QtOctave.
> 
> Another project is qtjs that in the future will be vey relevant,
> because it allows you to create GUIs for Octave using [Qt] Designer.
> (http://doc.trolltech.com/3.3/designer-manual-2.html have a look at
> the screenshots to get an idea).
> 
> As far as translations [and l10n], I don't maintain this part of
> QtOctave, rather, Alejandro does. I'll email him so he can look into
> it.
> 
> Another thing is that in a week or so I'll release version 0.9.2 that
> fixes a large numbers of bugs.
> 
> Greetings.
> 
> ---------------------END ENGLISH TRANSLATION ------------------------
> 
> Given that, I think it makes sense to honour upstream's wishes and put
> those three programs in the QtOctave package and throw the rest into
> qtoctave-utils, which is close to the packaging structure I recently
> pushed into git. Also, I think we should wait for the 0.9.2 release
> and focus on getting that one into squeeze.
> 
> Agreed?

I somehow managed to overlook this mail. Anyways, 0.9.1 is in the
archive now with only minimal changes. Splitting up QtOctave doesn't
gain us anything: everything we put into the separate package can be
left out entirely. 

So for now, we'll just continue with the upstream package as is, with
the exception of fixing the qtinfo <-> quicktime clash. Less work for
us and we are closer to upstream.

	Thomas