This is the mail archive of the
cygwin-apps
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: [ITA] GNU Octave 3.0.0
- From: Corinna Vinschen <corinna-cygwin at cygwin dot com>
- To: cygwin-apps at cygwin dot com
- Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 10:28:54 +0100
- Subject: Re: [ITA] GNU Octave 3.0.0
- References: <55490.50111.qm@web25011.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
- Reply-to: cygwin-apps at cygwin dot com
Hi Marco,
On Feb 4 15:03, Marco Atzeri wrote:
> http://matzeri.altervista.org/cygwin/octave/setup.hint
> http://matzeri.altervista.org/cygwin/octave/octave-3.0.0-1-src.tar.bz2
> http://matzeri.altervista.org/cygwin/octave/octave-3.0.0-1.tar.bz2
> http://matzeri.altervista.org/cygwin/octave/octave-devel/setup.hint
> http://matzeri.altervista.org/cygwin/octave/octave-devel/octave-devel-3.0.0-1.tar.bz2
The packaging looks basically ok to me. I like the simplification into
base and devel package. However,
- the setup.hint file of the -devel package is not ok. It looks like a
simple copy of the former octave-headers setup.hint file and the
package description doesn't match the actual package.
- I know that the former octave-headers also had dependencies to gcc-g++
and gcc-g77, but it looks a bit far fetched to me to force a pure c++
hacker to pull in g77, and vice versa. I would remove the
dependencies to both complier packages. After all, it's a -devel
package so every developer should know deep in the heart that a
compiler is required...
- is the Octave 3.0.0 API backward compatible with the Octave
2.1.x API? Will old applications linked against those DLLs still
run with the new release? If yes, everything's fine. If not,
we would need new DLLs. That would have the additional advantage
that you could rename the DLLs to use the standard "cyg" prefix
instead of the non-standard "lib" prefix.
I'm not a Octave user so I can't check anything functionality-wise,
sorry. Is any octave user here for testing?
Corinna
--
Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat