Re: [gentoo-science] octave forge

Re: [gentoo-science] octave forge

[atsui]

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?


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?

Thanks,

--Alex
-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/octave-forge-tp21281356p22644279.html
Sent from the gentoo-science mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: [gentoo-science] octave forge

[Vittorio Giovara]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 396 bytes --]

On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 5:06 PM, atsui <alextsui05@gmail.com> wrote:

> markusle wrote:
> 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?
>
>
i've built the whole openib tree with gcc-4.3.2 with no problems (with the
exception of mlx4, but that should be a common problem)

Vitto

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 714 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-science] octave forge

[Sébastien Fabbro]

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

[gentoo-science] octave forge

[Juan Aguado]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 799 bytes --]

Hi,

Bug #179885 [1] is the tracker for the octave forge split ebuilds. I 
attached to it some ebuilds, nearly all of the remaining packages, but 
nobody seems to care, despite being a blocker for gcc-4.3 stabilization 
and with an ancient octave-forge in portage that doesn't work with the 
non-ancient octave-3*.

Pinging markusle aside, there are a lot of forge packages that shouldn't 
monopolize the sci-mathematics category, so something must be made. 
Possible solutions:

1.- Do nothing, thats not a problem.
2.- Create a new category à la dev-texlive, something like sci-octave.
3.- Create a g-cpan-like program for this, preferably faster than the 
unexistent cran one.

My vote is for option 2. Comments?

Juan


[1] https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=179885

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-science] octave forge

[Markus Dittrich]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1813 bytes --]

Juan Aguado <juantxorena@gmail.com> writes:
> Hi,
> 
> Bug #179885 [1] is the tracker for the octave forge split ebuilds. I 
> attached to it some ebuilds, nearly all of the remaining packages, but 
> nobody seems to care, despite being a blocker for gcc-4.3 stabilization 
> and with an ancient octave-forge in portage that doesn't work with the 
> non-ancient octave-3*.
> 
> Pinging markusle aside, there are a lot of forge packages that shouldn't 
> monopolize the sci-mathematics category, so something must be made. 
> Possible solutions:
> 
> 1.- Do nothing, thats not a problem.
> 2.- Create a new category à la dev-texlive, something like sci-octave.
> 3.- Create a g-cpan-like program for this, preferably faster than the 
> unexistent cran one.
> 
> My vote is for option 2. Comments?
> 
> Juan
> 
> 
> [1] https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=179885


Hi Juan,

Thanks much for your message and all your hard work. 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.

That said, we need somebody to spearhead the effort in writing g-octave.
Unfortunately, this can not be me since I am currently simply too busy at
work and otherwise. Maybe we could use this as an opportunity to get
things started. We need one or two people that feel comfortable to take
a stab a g-octave (based on g-cpan maybe) and write a first prototype.
Any volunteers?

Best,
Markus


-- 
-- 
Markus Dittrich (markusle)
Gentoo Linux Developer
Scientific applications

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-science] octave forge

[Juan Aguado]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1309 bytes --]

> Thanks much for your message and all your hard work. 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.
>
> That said, we need somebody to spearhead the effort in writing
> g-octave. Unfortunately, this can not be me since I am currently
> simply too busy at work and otherwise. Maybe we could use this as an
> opportunity to get things started. We need one or two people that
> feel comfortable to take a stab a g-octave (based on g-cpan maybe)
> and write a first prototype. Any volunteers?
>
> Best,
> Markus

But, IIRC, g-cpan is used mainly for makind ebuilds for perl packages, 
because there are a lot and they are in their repository, with their 
deps and everything. octave-forge packages are hosted in sourceforge as 
regular tarballs, they are updated and maintained by the same group of 
people, there are only a bunch of them, and they don't have their deps 
listed anywhere but in their webpages. I can't see how a g-cpan-like 
app can help us with this.

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-science] octave forge

[Juan Aguado]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 83 bytes --]

Hopefully GCC-4.3 is going to be stabilized soon. Is there any comment 
on this?

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]