Rafael Laboissiere wrote:
* folajimi <folajimi@speakeasy.net> [2005-11-23 09:39]:
Colin seems to think that Rafael has taken care of the issue, but
Rafael thinks that the project has stalled...
If Colin is not taking care of the project and if he thinks I am
doing
it, then I can certify that the project is stalled.
So, feel free to take the plunge. For now, we need a good design,
before
we start the implementation.
my bad...I was thinking about the glpk thing. I've been off the deep
end lately trying to make this trip happen. It looks to me that
"number
1" of the original plan[1] has been taking care of[2]. We still need
to
prepare the remain packages that have octave2.1 as a dependence for
the
"smooth" switch i.e. octave-forge. I haven't been able to think about
this much except for checking out what exactly it takes to build
octave-forge against the two different octave versions. I agree that
three packages are needed here (octave2.9-forge, octave2.1-forge, and
octave-forge-common for example) but I haven't began looking at the
exacts of this and I won't until I return to Madison next week so feel
free (folajimi) to jump right in. I think this will be a big a
project
that is likely to break the repository how do you all feel about
branching /package/octave-forge for this transition?