octave-forge tarball format changed

Alakazam alakazam at melix.net
Wed May 14 16:36:50 PDT 2008


On 14 mai 08, at 08:08, Andrea D'Amore wrote:

>> What about splitting it up into several ports and make octave-forge  
>> depend on all those? This will only work as long as dependencies  
>> between these sub-ports can be maintained, otherwise this tends to  
>> break...
> I had a look to debian octave packages and they have switched to  
> single package modules too (maybe accordingly to change in single  
> octave-forge package), this has the obvious advantage of semplicity  
> and dependency control. I think we should have this approach.

I think this might be the best approach. I have tried compiling and  
installing several octave-forge packages recently, and the success  
rate is quite random ; this means having one big monolithic port might  
be inadequate and very difficult to maintain. Maintaining many  
separate Portfiles may be more complicated to manage, but will ensure  
that more octave-forge modules have better availability (instead of  
all of them being broken because of one module on one configuration  
for instance), and will make it easier for users to only install  
modules that they use.

Would it be possible to have an octave PortGroup ? That would make it  
easier to maintain several octave-forge modules in separate portfiles,  
I think.


Olivier Le Floch AKA Alakazam
alakazam at melix.net / olivier at le-floch.fr / http://olivier.le-floch.fr/

More information about the macports-dev mailing list