[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Moving code from octave-forge to octave [Was: polyderiv problem?]
From: |
Paul Kienzle |
Subject: |
Re: Moving code from octave-forge to octave [Was: polyderiv problem?] |
Date: |
Thu, 10 Feb 2005 21:35:49 -0500 |
On Feb 10, 2005, at 10:43 AM, John W. Eaton wrote:
On 9-Feb-2005, Paul Kienzle <address@hidden> wrote:
| I'm reluctant to force lock-step upgrading of octave and octave-forge
| which is the consequence of purging the cruft. A community poll may
be
| required here. How many people use an old version of octave with a
new
| version of octave-forge?
When I install octave-forge, it is usually done with apt-get, so I
assume I'm getting a compatible and up-to-date version. I've never
tried installing a new version of octave-forge with an old copy of
Octave. But I might not be a typical user.
That's true for me as well. However, some systems only come with
older versions of Octave. Rather than forcing a recompile to the
latest version of Octave in order to install octave-forge, I try
to support older versions, at least to some extent. Moving the core
compatibility functions to octave (especially interpolation routines,
but a lot of trivial routines as well) would reduce demand for
octave-forge considerably. I believe signal and image processing
are the next most heavily used.
Most of the time, I don't have octave-forge installed on the systems I
use because it replaces functions that are already in Octave,
sometimes with undesirable (or at least unexpected) results. I'd be
much more willing to always install octave-forge if I knew that it did
not include functions that overlap with ones already in Octave.
Obviously octave-forge has nothing of value to you because everything
you need you include in octave ;-)
You should not be seeing unexpected or undesirable results from
installing octave-forge. If you are, then it is a bug in octave-forge
and should be reported. Note that the NaN toolbox is not installed by
default because it changes the statistics functions to ignore NaNs.
- Paul
- Class of User Types [Was: Moving code from octave-forge to octave [Was: polyderiv problem?]], (continued)
- Class of User Types [Was: Moving code from octave-forge to octave [Was: polyderiv problem?]], David Bateman, 2005/02/25
- Re: Class of User Types [Was: Moving code from octave-forge to octave [Was: polyderiv problem?]], Paul Kienzle, 2005/02/25
- Re: Class of User Types [Was: Moving code from octave-forge to octave [Was: polyderiv problem?]], David Bateman, 2005/02/25
- Re: Class of User Types [Was: Moving code from octave-forge to octave [Was: polyderiv problem?]], Paul Kienzle, 2005/02/25
- Re: Class of User Types [Was: Moving code from octave-forge to octave [Was: polyderiv problem?]], John W. Eaton, 2005/02/25
- Re: Class of User Types [Was: Moving code from octave-forge to octave [Was: polyderiv problem?]], David Bateman, 2005/02/25
- Re: Class of User Types [Was: Moving code from octave-forge to octave [Was: polyderiv problem?]], John W. Eaton, 2005/02/25
- Re: Class of User Types [Was: Moving code from octave-forge to octave [Was: polyderiv problem?]], David Bateman, 2005/02/25
- Re: Moving code from octave-forge to octave [Was: polyderiv problem?], Przemek Klosowski, 2005/02/10
- Re: Moving code from octave-forge to octave [Was: polyderiv problem?], John W. Eaton, 2005/02/10
- Re: Moving code from octave-forge to octave [Was: polyderiv problem?],
Paul Kienzle <=
- Moving code from octave-forge to octave [Was: polyderiv problem?], John W. Eaton, 2005/02/10