Re: octave.mk MXE file still necessary?

[Rik]

On 06/21/2018 10:35 AM, John W. Eaton wrote:
> On 06/21/2018 12:06 PM, Rik wrote:
>> All,
>>
>> I just checked the recipes for making in Octave in the MXE src/ directory
>> and I find stable-octave.mk (4.4.0), default-octave.mk (5.0.0), and
>> octave.mk (4.2.0-rc4).  Do we need the last recipe?  I think it is
>> confusing because without any other information I would think to build just
>> octave.mk, and that would get me a very out-of-date version.
>
> I agree that it's a bit of a mess right now.
>
> I'm not sure how best to manage this or what the names of the targets
> should be, but my goals would be to allow the following four configurations:
>
>   * building from the current default branch in the hg archive.  As we do
> now, it's fine with me if this requires creating a tarball from the
> current hg sources separately from mxe-octave.  This configuration allows
> testing for the next major release.
>
>   * building from the current stable branch in the hg archive.  This can
> work the same way as for default, but just using the stable branch. This
> configuration allows testing for the next bug-fixing stable release.
>
>   * A way to build the last stable released version of Octave from
> ftp.gnu.org but with the latest mxe-octave tools and dependencies.  This
> configuration allows us to check whether the last stable release can
> still be built with new versions of tools and dependencies.
>
>   * A way to build the last stable released version of Octave from
> ftp.gnu.org with the same versions of mxe-octave tools and dependency
> libraries.  This configuration allows anyone to reproduce the builds that
> we distribute.
>
>   * A way to build the last stable released version of Octave from
> ftp.gnu.org but with the latest mxe-octave tools and dependencies.  This
> configuration allows us to check whether the last stable release can
> still be built with new versions of tools and dependencies.
>
>
> At least the first two configurations should be built and tested often by
> the buildbots.  The others are less important but seem useful to have.
>
> jwe
>
>

Agree with all of this.  To avoid confusion, I deleted the obsolete recipe
octave.mk.  If we want specific recipes for some of these scenarios they
can be written with appropriately descriptive names.

--Rik