* Thomas Weber <tweber@debian.org> [2013-12-11 18:45]:
Le mercredi 11 décembre 2013 à 12:34 +0100, Rafael Laboissiere a écrit :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.I think that we are guessing too much here, instead of measuring. Once a first package is available, we should really measure the impact.
I have written the following lines in my original original message (which you stripped off when quoting me):
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.
So, you essentially agree with me (or vice-versa :-).
That is:1) Run batches against the octave, octave-cli and octave-gui binaries. For the octave binary, runs with both the cli and the gui switch should be done.2) Change the packaging scripts such that only the cli version is available (I presume here that this is possible via a switch to ./configure or by building in a chroot without QT libraries). Run the batches again. This should only be done locally; there is no need to distribute these packages.3) Compare.Rafael, it seems you are in the best position for running the measurements - do you have time to do so?
Time is always scarce, but I will run some basic tests like the ones you suggested. At any rate, as Sébastien pointed out, the issue of RAM usage is not really relevant, provided that both binaries octave-cli and octave-gui are shipped in the octave package.
Rafael