Naming Scheme for MacPorts Octave versions

[Andrea D'Amore]

On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 15:55, Michael Dickens <michaelld at macports.org> wrote:
> That's another solution, and IMHO would be fine since all of the octave
> packages currently in MacPorts are "nomaintainer".

That's partially my fault, back in '08 I needed a couple octave
packages, saw that octave forge had semi-organized packages' data and
assembled the portfiles in a couple batch rushes.
I was a young MPadwan and didn't realize ports needed to be maintained.

> If nobody is going to actively maintain the octave ports (I call my maintenance "occasional"),
> then the fewer ports the better.

I agree with this but there's a certain willing to not delete ports.
I'd say to upgrade the octave core and wait for actual requests to
create octave packages specific ports.


> Lukas: When you do a "pkg install -forge packagename", where does the
> package get installed?

I don't get the 'pkg' and 'forge'.


-- 
Andrea