Thomas Weber wrote:
[putting Bill into CC]
Thanks, please continue cc'ing me.
This is my reasoning. It would be fine with me if this package depends on only packages that do not override base functionality. I just have a preference for not having to type something like this in:On 18/05/08 17:59 +0200, Rafael Laboissiere wrote:* John W. Eaton <jwe@bevo.che.wisc.edu> [2008-05-18 10:36]:Me too. I do not see the point in doing it.On 18-May-2008, Bill Denney wrote:| Would it be feasible to make a meta-package that depends on the current | version of all octave packages?I would prefer to avoid doing this.I do see a point. I can't imagine anybody going through a list of 30+ packages and deciding about each installation individually. So in theend, people just install everything and are done with it: space is cheap, time is expensive.
apt-get install $(apt-cache search ^octave- | grep -v "2.1 branch" | grep -v "3.0 branch" | grep -v dummy | awk '{print $1}')
(currently this is 35 packages)I fully understand that we would not likely want to have functions that override core Octave functions installed by default, and as stated above my real preference would be to have this much simpler than it currently is. I'm an on-again-off-again octave developer and I find this inconvenient-- I can only imagine how daunting people who just want to use octave find it.
I would really like to see an octave-packages-recommended .deb that includes all packages that do not override core functionality.
Thanks, Bill