Quentin Spencer wrote:
Rafael Laboissiere wrote:* Michael Creel <michael.creel@uab.es> [2005-11-23 15:46]:I have had some trouble getting o-f CVS to compile against Octave 2.1.72. Has anyone else had problems? MichaelThis is a belated reply but, indeed, compilation of octave-forge failsmiserably in my Debian unstable system with the latest version of octave.Question to the octave-forge crew: are there any plans to release a new version of octave-forge compatible with Octave 2.1.72?I had just been wondering the same thing. As far as I can tell, it looks like we've reached a point where it's time to branch octave-forge. The current aging release of octave-forge compiles with octave 2.1.72, but not 2.9.4. The CVS doesn't compile with 2.9.4, and apparently (I haven't tried it) not with 2.1.72 either. It doesn't compile with 2.9.4 because the sparse stuff conflicts with the sparse stuff that's now in octave 2.9.x, but it compiles if the sparse directory is disabled.
NOINSTALL in main/sparse fixes this
Furthermore, there are some functions like print.m that have been included in octave that are no longer necessary in octave-forge. I think octave-forge needs a little house cleaning and a new release, perhaps two: a 2.9.x compatible branch and a 2.1.x compatible branch. Has anyone kept track of what has been added to octave that can be removed from octave-forge? I'm not sufficiently familiar with CVS to know how to create branches. How does one go about doing that?There are some examples in main/miscellaneous/Makefile of some conditionally compiled. There is also regexp.cc that needs to be updated to the octave CVS syntax that is compatiable with matlab in octave forge and disabled from 2.9.5 on.. I'd suggest going this path rather than seperate 2.1 and 2.9 releases, as I believe a 2.9.x release marked as testing hopefully should be that far away. At that point octave-forge should be cleaned and then converted to the new package system.
The admin/make_index script gives information about shadowed functions in octave and octave_forge and can be used to find the migrated files.
I ought to raise one further question: what's the future of octave-forge? It seems like the new package system will result in it eventually going away, with things either being absorbed into octave or into smaller, more manageable packages. Until then, who's in charge of octave-forge? It seems like Paul doesn't have the time he used to for this--does it make sense to designate some other project leader(s) (I am not volunteering)?
I'd like to see at least one more release of octave-forge, and more if 2.9.x doesn't pass into testing some time soon. I'm definitely not volonteering either... My main reason for a desire for an octave-forge release is so that I can build a MingW release against a fixed octave-forge release rather than the CVS. I'd like at least one major change to octave-forge prior to that, as I'd like octave-forge to use the autoload function if it is available to reduce the size of the mingw release I'm making.
Cheers David -- David Bateman David.Bateman@motorola.comMotorola Labs - Paris +33 1 69 35 48 04 (Ph) Parc Les Algorithmes, Commune de St Aubin +33 1 69 35 77 01 (Fax) 91193 Gif-Sur-Yvette FRANCE
The information contained in this communication has been classified as: [x] General Business Information [ ] Motorola Internal Use Only [ ] Motorola Confidential Proprietary