octave-maintainers
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: octave-3.4.0 with arpack bundled


From: Jussi Lehtola
Subject: Re: octave-3.4.0 with arpack bundled
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2011 12:59:42 +0200

On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 22:14:35 -0300
Rafael Goncalves Martins <address@hidden> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 8:32 PM, John W. Eaton <address@hidden> wrote:
> > My reasoning for including the ARPACK sources with Octave was that I
> > didn't know of anyone actually maintaining the package, we needed to
> > have a serious bug fixed, and it seemed simpler to just include the
> > sources with Octave rather than try to point to some other location
> > and then tell people to build the sources separately with some
> > complicated set of directions that included applying patches,
> > hand-editing makefiles, etc.
> 
> My personal opinion is that you guys should just ship a custom arpack
> tarball if the upstream one isn't good enough, so the other projects
> using arpack can benefit from your patches as well.

"A tarball" isn't enough IMHO. What you want is a decent project with
version control and VCS access, (hopefully) also for people who aren't
interested in Octave. Starting one on e.g. Google Code or
SourceForge is a task that takes a minute.

You should have the site up and running in less than 15 minutes.

> I can spend hours here talking about why bundled libraries are evil,
> but my mate Diego Pettenò already did the hard work:
> http://blog.flameeyes.eu/tag/bundledlibraries
> 
> Please read at least some of the posts and take your own conclusions.

For thorough review of why bundled libraries shouldn't be used, you can
read
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:No_Bundled_Libraries
-- 
Jussi Lehtola
Fedora Project Contributor
address@hidden


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]