Re: [Pkg-octave-devel] Bug#463039: why does octave3.0 provide: octave2.9?
Am Montag, den 04.02.2008, 23:58 +0100 schrieb Rafael Laboissiere:
> * Thomas Weber <thomas.weber.mail@gmail.com> [2008-02-04 21:06]:
>
> > I'd say we simply let octave2.9 die. I'm pretty confident people will find
> > octave3.0 by themselves.
> >
> > I don't consider the epoch to be that kind of a problem, but I don't want to
> > continue with the virtual octave package. At one point, we probably will
> > recommend switching to Octave 3.1. But I think users should make that switch
> > consciously and not because they happen to have "octave" installed.
> >
> > So, the virtual "octave" package should be dropped. Getting rid of the epoch
> > is a bonus.
>
> In my proposal, only the dummy octave2.9* packages would be created.
> Dropping or not the virtual octave package is a separate issue.
>
> Another solution for the problem is just letting octave2.9 die, as you
> wrote. It would be nice though to have users being automatically upgraded
> from octave2.9 to octave3.0. For that we would need the dummy octave2.9*
> packages and the epoch.
>
> So, what is your final word?
I'm for the the dummy 2.9 package. It has the added advantage of getting
rid of the "octave" package in a sensible way (we simply don't build it
anymore).
Thomas
Reply to: