Hi,
On 14 mai 08, at 08:08, Andrea D'Amore wrote:
What about splitting it up into several ports and make octave-forge
depend on all those? This will only work as long as dependencies
between these sub-ports can be maintained, otherwise this tends to
break...
I had a look to debian octave packages and they have switched to
single package modules too (maybe accordingly to change in single
octave-forge package), this has the obvious advantage of semplicity
and dependency control. I think we should have this approach.
I think this might be the best approach. I have tried compiling and
installing several octave-forge packages recently, and the success
rate is quite random ; this means having one big monolithic port might
be inadequate and very difficult to maintain. Maintaining many
separate Portfiles may be more complicated to manage, but will ensure
that more octave-forge modules have better availability (instead of
all of them being broken because of one module on one configuration
for instance), and will make it easier for users to only install
modules that they use.
Would it be possible to have an octave PortGroup ? That would make it
easier to maintain several octave-forge modules in separate portfiles,
I think.
Regards,
--
Olivier Le Floch AKA Alakazam
[EMAIL PROTECTED] / [EMAIL PROTECTED] / http://olivier.le-floch.fr/
_______________________________________________
macports-dev mailing list
macports-dev@lists.macosforge.org
http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev
