[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Should we rename qtoctave to octave and octave to octave-cli? (was R

From: Brett Gilio
Subject: Re: Should we rename qtoctave to octave and octave to octave-cli? (was Re: Octave & QtOctave)
Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2018 09:49:34 -0600
User-agent: mu4e 1.0; emacs 26.1

Alex Vong writes:

> address@hidden writes:
>> names for packages are (mostly) random, although in some
>> cases following classiifcations (see python-*, r-*, ...).
> I am thinking that should we rename qtoctave to octave and octave to
> octave-cli (or octave-minimal)?
> Firstly, a new user wanting to install octave will probably do the
> obvious "guix package -i octave", but currently this command will do the
> counter-intuitive thing of installing the non-gui version of
> octave. Instead, they will have to install qtoctave to get the gui. I am
> in favour of making a package to support as many features as possible,
> while also making a minimal version for building other packages (or
> users who desn't want a gui). An example would be emacs vs
> emacs-minimal.
> Secondly, I suggest to name the minimal version as "octave-cli" because
> this is what the octave binary (the command-line only version) is
> called. Also, running "guix package -A '-cli$'" shows some of the
> existing packages also follow similar naming convention (I don't know it
> they have a corresponding gui version though).
> What do others think?
> Cheers,
> Alex

I am in favor of this idea:
Octave && Octave Minimal


reply via email to

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