Re: [gentoo-science] octave forge

["Sébastien Fabbro" <bicatali@gentoo.org>]

On Sunday March 22 atsui wrote:
> markusle wrote:
> > 
> > We had a long time
> > ago agreed to go with 3., simply because of the fact that the
> > octave-forge.eclass does most of the work at this point and there
> > is hence no good reason to add a new category to the portage tree
> > which contains many
> > tens of split octave-forge ebuilds that by themselves simply call
> > the eclass
> > and hence don't do anything but waste space. 
> > 
> 
> I've just started following this list, so I was wondering what the
> status of octave-forge is on the overlay? As you know, there might be
> a SoC project to write something to handle the octave packages
> including octave-forge, but I was wondering if there was any
> development in this direction in the last month or so?

The last work has been Markus eclass implementation which is what you
see in the science overlay with git.


> juantxorena wrote:
> > 
> > Hopefully GCC-4.3 is going to be stabilized soon. Is there any
> > comment on this? 
> > 
> 
> Does anyone know if this is still a problem?

This is work in progress. Still some packages are not compiling with
gcc-4.3. octave-3 is fine with it. The only worry here is that we want
to have octave-3 stabilize, which is currently being done.

-- 
Sébastien