Re: [Pkg-octave-devel] /usr/bin/mex and texlive
Hi,
Am Dienstag, den 03.10.2006, 17:36 +0200 schrieb Rafael Laboissiere:
> * John W. Eaton <jwe@bevo.che.wisc.edu> [2006-10-03 09:36]:
>
> > Yes, I added the --mex option to mkoctfile because is was the easy
> > thing to do. In Matlab, there is a mex command that can be used at
> > the Matlab prompt and also a mex shell command, so it might be nice to
> > provide a script called mex that has an interface the same as the mex
> > shell command provided by Matlab so that scripts or Makefiles that
> > people have for Matlab will work with Octave too. But that will lead
> > to conflicts, not only with texlive, but also with Matlab itself. I
> > imagine that people would not be happy if, after installing Octave,
> > the mex command suddenly starts doing something different. So I'm not
> > sure what the best solution is. Maybe provide the script in an
> > examples directory but not install it by default?
>
> I think we should let things as they are now. The only current conflict in
> Debian is due to octave2.1-forge having /usr/bin/mex. For the etch release
> we could consider making octave2.9 the default octave, such that people
> would rather install octave2.9-forge instead of octave2.1-forge. I do not
> know if this is appropriate, though.
Well, after Paul's mail I already sent the texlive maintainer a mail
that they can use /usr/bin/mex (which basically means removing a bogus
'conflict', see below).
Apart from me being too fast, I guess there's a mis-understanding here.
octave2.1-forge has no 'mex' command, it's called mex2.1 (I thought
octave2.9-forge had a mex command as well and I needed a way to
distinguish between them). Indeed, I installed the texlive-package and
octave2.1-forge to ensure that they can co-exist in their current state.
So I guess for us as maintainers it is a question of what's more
important: polish-texlive users being able to install octave2.1-forge or
Octave users having a mex command for Octave 2.1? Personnaly, I tend to
the first solution simply because Octave 2.9 has a much better mex
support; so most people with mex-files will want to use Octave2.9
anyways.
Thomas
Reply to: