Re: [Pkg-octave-devel] Packaging Octave 3.8
* Sébastien Villemot <sebastien@debian.org> [2013-12-11 12:24]:
I just realized that there is one added complexity with this approach.
We will have two packages providing octave: one will be just "octave"
like now (containing the binary which can do both GUI and
command-line), and "octave-cli" (containing the binary which can do
only command-line). It would therefore be logic to modify most reverse
dependencies, like the 'Forge packages, to depend on "octave |
octave-cli", in order not to force people to install the GUI-capable
version (which would defeat the purpose of splitting the packages).
Yes, this must be done. This is not really a big deal since most of the
depending packages are under control of the DOG and this change can be
automated.
I am not sure this is worth the effort. The only benefit of splitting
the package is that people with low disk space will not be forced to
install Qt. That does not seem like a huge gain.
It is also a matter of RAM, since octave-gui, when launched, will load
the whole Qt libraries into memory, which is undesirable for batch
processes. Anyway, before taking the decision, I think we need to look
at some data, like the difference in resources (HD and RAM) involved in
each case.
Rafael
Reply to: