Re: Cyclic dependencies in octave2.1 packages?
Richard B. Kreckel wrote:
> I would not complain about this if we were able to clearly see such
> problems ahead during the ten day period. But experience has shown that
> we routinely fail to recognize them from the output of Björn's scripts.
>
> The reason of this, one could conject, is that the output during that ten
> day period is just a rather barren "...is too young". :-(
In the topical case, there was no problem to be displayed. The only reason octave2.1 didn't automatically move to testing was that there were so many packages that needed to go in together that it required manual hinting.
If you look at another example, such as pnet, you will see that my script does in fact not just display "too young" if there are other issues.
I am always interested in suggestions for improvement though. Please mail me privately if you have ideas about how the script output could be enhanced.
--
Björn
Reply to: