On 19 Jul 2009, at 15:23, Thomas Weber wrote:

> On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 09:12:06PM +0200, Søren Hauberg wrote:
>> søn, 19 07 2009 kl. 19:44 +0200, skrev Thomas Weber:
>>> are there objections against moving lauchli.m from special-matrix  
>>> into
>>> miscellaneous and eliminating the (then empty) special-matrix  
>>> package?
>>
>> I don't have any objections to moving this function elsewhere, but
>> perhaps someone else does? Anyway, why should this function go into
>> 'miscellaneous'? I'm not against this choice of package, I'm just
>> curious as to why this one got picked.
>
> Well, I couldn't think of a better place/package. For what it's worth,
> we patched it into the "octave-miscellaneous" package in Debian over a
> year ago and haven't received any complaints.
>
> Maybe a strategy like the following would be good:
> 1) If you have 1-2 small functions, that fit nowhere in the more
> specialized packages, put them into miscellaneous.
>
> 2) If functions are of general interest and not specialized, put them
> into general.
>
> Another candidate for such a treatment would be physical-constants,
> which generates just one .m file (also its generation uses a Python
> script).
>
>       Thomas

I am personally against the idea of grouping together all packages  
that contain few (or even only one) functions, for example I like the  
ability to have "physicalconstant" installed without
garbling the octave namespace with all the stuff in the  
"miscellaneous" or "general" package
which I usually don't use...
I also believe this approach is more consistent with the packaging  
system phylosophy:
In the near future (I should have finished doing this long time ago,
sorry for my delay Søren ;) ) we expect to move to a release system  
where each package maintainer can take care of his/her package  
independently, so forcibly grouping functions that are maintained by  
different people would likely mess up things quite a bit...
In case it is to much of a hussle to have a deb package for each  
octave package, maybe you could have debs containing more than one  
octave package?
Just my two cents...
c.

  
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enter the BlackBerry Developer Challenge  
This is your chance to win up to $100,000 in prizes! For a limited time, 
vendors submitting new applications to BlackBerry App World(TM) will have
the opportunity to enter the BlackBerry Developer Challenge. See full prize  
details at: http://p.sf.net/sfu/Challenge
_______________________________________________
Octave-dev mailing list
Octave-dev@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/octave-dev

Reply via email to