Is octave-devel the "official" octave in preference to octave?

[Andrea D'Amore]

On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 8:11 AM, David Shao <davshaonr at gmail.com> wrote:
> On a Macbook 2,1 running Lion 10.7.4, Xcode 4.3.2, octave fails to
> build with error message:
> Undefined symbols for architecture x86_64:
>   "_SuiteSparse_time", referenced from:
>       _umfpack_tic in libumfpack.a(umfpack_gn_tictoc.o)
>       _umfpack_toc in libumfpack.a(umfpack_gn_tictoc.o)
> ld: symbol(s) not found for architecture x86_64

I've fixed this, once I finish building the port (I'm past the
SuiteSparse_time issue but octave takes its time to build) I'll commit
the change.
I've created a new ticket [1] and cc'ed you, once you get notified the
ticket is closed you'll have to sync the port tree, clean octave port
and rebuild it.

As future reference when a port doesn't build check the trac system
for an existing ticket and if there's none for your problem file a new
one, see [2] for details.


> octave-devel using the same packages for dependent libs when possible
> appears to build and at least run.  octave has no maintainer while
> octave-devel does have one.

> Is octave-devel the actual recommended octave?

There's been a discussion about octave not too much ago, check -dev
mailing list's archive. The two ports differ in version, one is 3.2
branch and the other is 3.4, IIRC the discussion was about pulling
-devel to 3.4 because that had been left behind. Anyway search for it.


-- 
Andrea


[1] http://trac.macports.org/ticket/35100
[2] http://guide.macports.org/#project.tickets