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 1LlQC7-0004HY-2x for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sun, 22 Mar 2009 16:06:39 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id E5B49E058A; Sun, 22 Mar 2009 16:06:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C61B9E058A for ; Sun, 22 Mar 2009 16:06:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 666E764614 for ; Sun, 22 Mar 2009 16:06:37 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at gentoo.org X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 required=5.5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from smtp.gentoo.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.gentoo.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Kwav9SbGDVz8 for ; Sun, 22 Mar 2009 16:06:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kuber.nabble.com (kuber.nabble.com [216.139.236.158]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91FF8641F4 for ; Sun, 22 Mar 2009 16:06:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from isper.nabble.com ([192.168.236.156]) by kuber.nabble.com with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1LlQBv-00076L-Lc for gentoo-science@gentoo.org; Sun, 22 Mar 2009 09:06:27 -0700 Message-ID: <22644279.post@talk.nabble.com> Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2009 09:06:27 -0700 (PDT) From: atsui To: gentoo-science@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-science] octave forge 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=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Nabble-From: alextsui05@gmail.com X-Archives-Salt: e282acd1-ef2b-4d16-91c5-46b0c8c4aa71 X-Archives-Hash: 4ab08df99418e6b24f0bb49f1c3164db 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.