> > We can definitely assume 3.0 since the package manager was first > > introduced in 3.0. I think we should assume 3.2 as people can still > > download older versions of the packages if they want to. Of course if it > > is trivial to support older version, then I think we should, but (at > > least for me) it is not a priority. I plan on using 3.2 features in the > > next version of the 'image' package. Your question seems to be about > > what to do with functions that are now in Octave. I'd say remove them > > from the package. If that results in a really small package, then we > > should consider merging it with some other package. > > Actually I think it would be better to keep OF packages that are available > for download from sourceforge compatible with the stable branch. I beleive > most users will probably install the "stable" release of Octave (mainly > through the binaries on OF) so we should expect a LOT of complaints from > users if the packages are not compatible with that version.
It would be very useful to have two packages, one for the stable and one for the development version. In the download page (monolithic releases), please keep labeling e.g. "2007-03-28 for Octave 2.9.10". This is missing in last 5 releases. Sometimes it is needed to install Octave-Forge on a unix machine with an older Octave release (you cannot persuade admins to install the latest Octave) and there an older Octave-Forge is necessary. --- Petr Mikulik ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Open Source Business Conference (OSBC), March 24-25, 2009, San Francisco, CA -OSBC tackles the biggest issue in open source: Open Sourcing the Enterprise -Strategies to boost innovation and cut costs with open source participation -Receive a $600 discount off the registration fee with the source code: SFAD http://p.sf.net/sfu/XcvMzF8H _______________________________________________ Octave-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/octave-dev
