From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Lm5Ps-0006nY-Mi for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 24 Mar 2009 12:07:36 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 29D01E03F4; Tue, 24 Mar 2009 12:07:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp2.ist.utl.pt (smtp2.ist.utl.pt [193.136.128.22]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8ACCE03F4 for ; Tue, 24 Mar 2009 12:07:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp2.ist.utl.pt (Postfix) with ESMTP id 418C770005D6 for ; Tue, 24 Mar 2009 12:07:34 +0000 (WET) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-2.6.1 (20080629) (Debian) at ist.utl.pt Received: from smtp2.ist.utl.pt ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp2.ist.utl.pt [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10025) with LMTP id q25gTMaUonRh for ; Tue, 24 Mar 2009 12:07:31 +0000 (WET) Received: from mail.ist.utl.pt (mail.ist.utl.pt [193.136.128.8]) by smtp2.ist.utl.pt (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB03770005D5 for ; Tue, 24 Mar 2009 12:07:31 +0000 (WET) Received: from nutmeg.localdomain (spice.ist.utl.pt [193.136.161.163]) (Authenticated sender: ist24237@mail.ist.utl.pt) by mail.ist.utl.pt (Postfix) with ESMTP id 880EF140030D for ; Tue, 24 Mar 2009 12:07:31 +0000 (WET) Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 12:05:49 +0000 From: =?UTF-8?B?U8OpYmFzdGllbg==?= Fabbro To: gentoo-science@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-science] octave forge Message-ID: <20090324120549.374426c0@nutmeg.localdomain> In-Reply-To: <22644279.post@talk.nabble.com> References: <22644279.post@talk.nabble.com> Organization: Gentoo X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.7.1 (GTK+ 2.14.7; i686-pc-linux-gnu) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-science@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-science@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: e02caa59-d95c-44ff-ab29-9c70be79ee74 X-Archives-Hash: b65d342954945884318db0aabf401112 On Sunday March 22 atsui wrote: > markusle wrote: > >=20 > > 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.=20 > >=20 >=20 > 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: > >=20 > > Hopefully GCC-4.3 is going to be stabilized soon. Is there any > > comment on this?=20 > >=20 >=20 > 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. --=20 S=C3=A9bastien