tor, 19 02 2009 kl. 09:58 +0100, skrev Petr Mikulik: > > 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.
I'm not sure what'll happen with the monolithic releases. I realise that a lot of people like these bundles, but they take some work to maintain. I have no plans on updating the monolithic bundle every time a new package is released, but I would very much like it if somebody did this. As to the labeling of individual packages then I think this will depend on the individual maintainer. We can agree on some common way of doing this, but I'm not sure which way is the better. Suggestions are welcome. > 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. Yes, this is a real use-case, and I agree that we should do our best to handle this situation. Søren ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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
