>> rejected, for now. >> Why does this need a new package and can't go into an existing one? > I think you are talking about octave-pkg-rebuild, which is the new package > created from the octave-pkg-dev source. I am. > This package is intended to be a dependency for all packages providing > Octave add-ons (as the Octave Forge packages). > I decided to create a separate package for it in order to avoid pulling > unnecessary dependencies. Had I included the octave-pkg-rebuild into > octave-pkg-dev, the octave3.0-headers package would become also a > dependency, pulling several unnecessary lib*-dev packages at install time. Then the file should go into an existing package where everything has to depend on anyway. > If you have any suggestion about another way of doing this, I would love to > hear from you. Better, join the discussion in the thread in > pkg-octave-devel [1]. BTW, Thomas Weber already suggested to include the > functionality of octave-pkg-rebuild into octave3.0 and I explained why I > think this is not a good idea. Your reply to his suggestion was: >> That could be a solution too, but I think it is preferable to keep all the >> code relative to Octave pkg management inside a single source package, >> namely octave-pkg-dev. This would avoid spread of code and synchronization >> problems in the future. This is code related to the installation of octave add ons. So it IMO does have a place in $whatever-is-the-central-octave-package. Sorry, but I chose to stay with the rejection of that package. -- bye, Joerg AM: Whats the best way to find out if your debian/copyright is correct? NM: Upload package into the NEW queue.
Attachment:
pgpgBgFCORBTJ.pgp
Description: PGP signature