Re: [Pkg-octave-devel] Creation of an octave-forge package

[Thomas Weber <thomas.weber.mail@gmail.com>]

On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 01:18:47AM +0200, Rafael Laboissiere wrote:
> * Debian Installer <installer@ftp-master.debian.org> [2009-04-11 19:17]:
> 
> > Accepted:
> > octave-ad_1.0.4-2.diff.gz
> >   to pool/main/o/octave-ad/octave-ad_1.0.4-2.diff.gz
> > octave-ad_1.0.4-2.dsc
> >   to pool/main/o/octave-ad/octave-ad_1.0.4-2.dsc
> > octave-ad_1.0.4-2_amd64.deb
> >   to pool/main/o/octave-ad/octave-ad_1.0.4-2_amd64.deb
> 
> [and 44 or so further messages like the above]
> 
> Thanks a lot for this work, Thomas.
> 
> Would it make sense to create an empty octave-forge package that Depends
> on all octave-forge pkgs that have "Autoload: yes" and
> Recommends/Suggests the pkgs with "Autoload: no"?

I think users will then just install this meta-package and be done with
it. I can't blame them for this, choosing out of 40+ packages is
time-consuming and doesn't buy you much. Install everything and you are
settled.

But if we do this, what's the point of having split packages at all?

Also, there doesn't seem to be much consensus upstream which packages 
should have Autoload:yes and which shouldn't.

	Thomas