octave-maintainers
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: Octave-Forge: requirement for a maintainer Makefile for release


From: Juan Pablo Carbajal
Subject: Re: Octave-Forge: requirement for a maintainer Makefile for release
Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2016 14:45:12 +0100

On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 2:24 PM, Alexander Barth
<address@hidden> wrote:
> "You can still keep all the 6 Makefile on your packages the same, it's
> just that you would have to sync them when a change is made.  You can
> even a one line Makefile that only calls your script (but your existing
> script would still have to be committed on the six repos).  I would
> guess that they wouldn't change much overtime so it wouldn't be too
> much of a burden."
>
> Yes, this is what I wanted to avoid: copying code in 6 different
> places and maintaining all 6 copies.
>
>
> Last time I checked, it was not necessary for R or Julia package to
> provide a Makefile for package containing only scripts. Shouldn't we
> rather make to process of submitting a package not as simple as
> possible (at least for packages which a just a collection of scripts
> without any C/C++ or Fortran code)? The number of octave package is
> with 69 (+33 unmaintained) rather low compared to Julia (1128
> including the unmaintained packages) or R (9624).
>

i support any effort that aims at reducing the hurdle to people to
contribute code. however, to keep Carnë's high standards in OF, I
would rather extend pkg to accept a url and install "unofficial"
packages (similar to what Julia does). Those packages do not need to
follow OF standars.
Last time I checked Carlo de Falco was evaluating the possibility of
setting up what Jluia has for their packages.



reply via email to

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