Re: [Pkg-octave-devel] Slave update-alternatives [was: Re: Bug#383149: tried purging then reinstalling octave2.9 package]
* John W. Eaton <jwe@bevo.che.wisc.edu> [2006-08-17 16:39]:
> That's better than no change, but it will still get people who assume
> that by doing
>
> update-alternatives --config octave
>
> they have selected a new and consistent version of Octave and it's
> associated tools when they haven't really done that. Mixing versions
> won't work properly, so it is a potential source of confusion.
Agreed.
> How big is the octave-headers package compared to octave now? On my
> amd64 system, octave2.9 is about 7.5M and octave2.9-headers is just
> 341k, so at this point, would it really hurt if we always included the
> headers with the main package?
This is a sensible suggestion. I am reluctant to implementing it now
because it will imply an overhaul of all the Octave-related packages in
Debian. We cannot afford doing it right now because the next release of
Debian is scheduled for December. Let us revisit the issue post-etch.
--
Rafael
Reply to: