Re: [OctDev] Re: new release

[Quentin S. <qsp...@ie...>]

David Bateman wrote:

> Quentin Spencer a écrit :
>
>> John W. Eaton wrote:
>>
>> >On 29-Dec-2005, David Bateman wrote:
>> >
>> >| > I think decrufting and supporting older versions of octave at 
>> the same
>> >| > time is not practical, so I'm arguing for a clean break.
>> >
>> >Sorry, I was traveling for a week, then out of commission with some
>> >flu-like thing, then traveling again.  I have a backlog of patches
>> >(including the code for the package system) that I will try to work
>> >through as soon as possible.
>> > >
>>
>> While we're still discussing a new release sometime soon, I'd like to
>> repeat a request I made a while ago. Can we remove the nonfree directory
>> from octave-forge and make it a separate package? Even though it's not
>> installed by default, I am required to use a modified version of the
>> source package to comply with Fedora Extras policies. When I brought
>> this up before, I believe the Debian maintainer said they should
>> technically be doing the same thing as well.
>>
>> -Quentin
>>
> Quentin,
>
> Can you live with it for one more release? If so John has indicated 
> that he is currently incorporating Soren's package manager into 2.9.x 
> and if octave-forge then becomes a purely 2.9.x affair, excluding 
> non-free will become trivial..


Yes, it's really not too much trouble, just a little annoyance.

-Quentin