Re: [Pkg-octave-devel] Lenny is out, time for work
* Thomas Weber <thomas.weber.mail@gmail.com> [2009-02-18 16:56]:
> Am Mittwoch, den 18.02.2009, 09:06 -0600 schrieb Jordi Gutiérrez
> Hermoso:
> > 2009/2/16 Thomas Weber <thomas.weber.mail@gmail.com>:
> > > That means removal request for
> > [snip]
> > > octaviz
> >
> > I understand why the others have to go, and although I also understand
> > octaviz is abandoned upstream, do we have to get rid of it? It's not
> > exceptionally buggy, and I personally still have use for it. Has it
> > been difficult to maintain?
>
> It takes longer to compile than Octave itself. Apart from that, no, it
> isn't too difficult to maintain. I wouldn't bet for it to compile
> against 3.2, though.
If it compiles against octave3.0, perhaps we should keep it in squeeze and
remove it insqueeze+1, unless upstream development starts again. Of course,
I am making the assumption that octave3.0 will only be dropped in squeeze+1.
We might adopt the same policy as regards the other packages that Thomas
listed earlier in this thread, except for octave2.1 and octave2.1-forge,
which we decided to drop in lenny+1, a long time ago.
--
Rafael
Reply to: