[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

[Pkg-octave-devel] Bug#812775: Bug#812775: octave-ltfat: ltfatstart does not ensure proper paths searching



On 28.01.2016 23:36, Rafael Laboissiere wrote:
* Andrei Demekhov <andrei@appl.sci-nnov.ru> [2016-01-28 17:19]:

Thank you for the prompt response. I have checked your commands, and they work as you describe.

Great.

My problem arises when I start octave in the usual (command-prompt) regime. It occurs both in shell and in the Emacs environment. The .octaverc file contains the lines recommended in the upstream documentation:

addpath("/usr/share/octave/packages/ltfat-2.1.1"); ltfatstart;

However, if instead I place

pkg load signal pkg load ltfat

in the .octaverc or execute these commands manually, the path is updated correctly.

It probably should be noticed in the documentation (README.Debian ?) that the load procedure recommended upstream does not work.

Ok, thanks.  I will consider doing this.

Besides, a dependency on the signal package should probably be added.

Could you please elaborate more on this? For building the octave-ltfat package, the octave-signal package is not required and all the unit tests run correctly. What makes you say that a dependency on octave-signal should be added ?


The signal package is required at least for running demo_wfbt:

 >> demo_wfbt
warning: the 'resample' function belongs to the signal package from Octave Forge
which you have installed but not loaded.  To load the package, run 'pkg
load signal' from the Octave prompt.

Please read <http://www.octave.org/missing.html> to learn how you can
contribute missing functionality.
warning: called from
     __unimplemented__ at line 524 column 5
     demo_wfbt at line 62 column 3
error: 'resample' undefined near line 62 column 5
error: called from
     demo_wfbt at line 62 column 3

So for smooth running of all scripts in this package octave-signal is indeed required. I am not sure whether it is sufficient for adding a dependency.

Best regards
Andrei



Reply to: