Re: [gentoo-science] octave forge

[atsui <alextsui05@gmail.com>]

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.