[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: binary packages

From: Andy Adler
Subject: Re: binary packages
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 09:59:37 -0500 (EST)

On Mon, 16 Feb 2004, Paul Kienzle wrote:
>  | Windows 98, 2000, XP:
>  |    Two approaches here:  one is a cygwin package approach,
>  |    the other a separately installed binary.   My own preference
>  |    is for a separately installed binary which can optionally
>  |    install into an existing cygwin environment.
>  For a separately installed binary package, the key feature is that it
>  play nice with existing Cygwin installations.  I would prefer to not
>  see any more angry messages from people who blame Octave for screwing
>  up their Cywgin installation...


I have never (recently) had an interest in win9x, but I recall that we
had a problem with dynamic linking on these systems. Because of that
there was some interest in maintaining a static only build of

What is the status of this? If its no longer a problem, then it
simplifies octave packaging considerably.


Octave is freely available under the terms of the GNU GPL.

Octave's home on the web:
How to fund new projects:
Subscription information:

reply via email to

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