Le mardi 06 mai 2014 à 00:50 +0200, Rafael Laboissiere a écrit : > The package is prepared in Git and its ITP is Bug#747039. > > This package is quite large and complex. It seems to work for me, but I > did not test it thoroughly. Unfortunately, the upstream package has no > unit test suite. I sort of compensated that by exercising the > insts/demos/demo_*.m files in debian/check.m. It is better than doing no > tests, event though the results are not really verified. I would prefer not to be in the Uploaders field of the package. That field should contain the list of people doing the usual maintenance work, and I will obviously not do it for octave-ltlfat. I am however willing to fix RC bugs or handle transitions involving this package, but I don't need to be in the Uploaders field, I can do "Team uploads" since the package is maintained by the DOG. Ideally I think you should be in the Uploaders field, what do you think? I will also probably remove myself from other DOG packages which I don't specifically care about. Again, that won't prevent me from uploading these packages from time to time, for RC bugs or during transitions. But this is another story. > Many of those demo files produce plots, which does not work in the > absence of a graphics system. I got around this by redefining the > figure() function in check.m, which is a suboptimal solution. I am > wondering whether it is appropriate to change octave-pkg.mk such that the > tests would be run under xvfb-run. Do you think it is a good idea? That sounds like a good idea, and could also be used by matlab2tizk. Ideally the use of xvfb-run should be optional. Maybe that could be triggered using some Makefile variable? -- .''`. Sébastien Villemot : :' : Debian Developer `. `' http://www.dynare.org/sebastien `- GPG Key: 4096R/381A7594
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part