On 11/26/05, Rafael Laboissiere <rafael@debian.org> wrote:
* Colin Ingram <synergizedmusic@gmail.com> [2005-11-23 22:23]:
> 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?
This is definitely a good idea. I would like to keep the main trunk of
octave-forge in a near-releasable state because there will be many things
happening in the coming weeks related to the C++ ABI transition which
will imply new releases of octave-forge.
okay I created a branch called 2.9transition were we can branch
any of the packages for releated to this transition. I also
created the octave-forge branch. I volunteer myself to be in
charge of sync/merges with the trunk, anyone can work in the branch of
course.
Notice that the octave virtual package only exists to easy the
transitions. Currently, only the
octave2.1 source package generates a
virtual octave package. In this case, I think that octave-forge-common
(or whichever name we choose) should depend on octave2.1 | octave2.9.
thats cool. I personally HATE virtual packages anyway, so I wouldn't won't to require user to actually instal one.
--
Rafael
_______________________________________________
Pkg-octave-devel mailing list
Pkg-octave-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-octave-devel