Re: [Pkg-octave-devel] Slave update-alternatives [was: Re: Bug#383149: tried purging then reinstalling octave2.9 package]
Am Freitag, den 18.08.2006, 10:21 +0200 schrieb Rafael Laboissiere:
> > 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.
As a work-around, we could let the octave packages depend on the
octave-header packages. If we know that always both are installed, we
could make mkoctfile (and friends) slave of the octave alternative.
This might need some thoughts, because we are tying together commands
from two packages, but the different emacs and vi flavours are doing
just that.
Thomas
Reply to: