Re: [Plplot-devel] Re: New patches for the Octave bindings

[<jc...@fe...>]

On Monday 10 May 2004 15:14, Rafael Laboissiere wrote:
| Achtung !!!!  Virenfund in ausgehender Nachricht !!!!
|
| * Jo=E3o Cardoso <jc...@fe...> [2004-05-10 14:48]:
| > I made a bad move when I converted the Octave scripts to
| > Octave-2.1.50. The previous version worked with both 2.0.17 and
| > 2.1.xx
| >
| > Until mid June I don't have the time to change it. And at that time
| > other thinks might come up.
| >
| > To "solve" the problem we can bring the old version back to HEAD.
| > What do you think?
|
| No, I cannot afford the amount of extra work, sorry.
|
| What is the exact situation right now?  Which versions of Octave does
| the current sources in CVS HEAD support?

My (not CVS updated) copy of figure.m checks the Octave version and=20
complains if it is not greater or equal than 2.1.50.
But I have not checked it with latter versions, so either you apply your=20
changes or we must change figure.m to _require_ Octave-2.1.50.

| The only thing that I can guarantee for now is that my patches for
| the Debian package make the Octave bindings work with Octave 2.1.57,

If you can run all the p*.m script demos and x??c.m bindings demo, than=20
most probably your changes will be OK. Just to be on the right side of=20
the track try also generating a postscript plot, using "save_fig".

Joao

| which is the recommend version in the 2.1 branch. At least, this is
| what John W. Eaton stated in the octave-maintainers mailing list two
| months ago (see
| http://www.octave.org/mailing-lists/octave-maintainers/2004/304):
|
| * John W. Eaton <jw...@be...> [2004-03-12 14:35]:
| > Octave 2.1.57 is now available for ftp from ftp.octave.org in the
| > directory /pub/octave/bleeding-edge:
| >
| > [...]
| >
| > Since we seem to be converging on something that works reasonably
| > well, I'm going to make a bold move and call 2.1.57 the recommended
| > version.