Re: packaging system

[Stefan van der Walt]

On Sat, Jun 18, 2005 at 02:03:03PM -0400, John W. Eaton wrote:
> Hmm.  It does to me.  If we implement dependencies in the package
> system, then there is nothing preventing you from installing a package
> that doesn't actually have any files of its own, but depends on
> several other packages.  If you'd like, you can call your
> dependency-only package a "toolbox".  I see no reason to complicate
> things by introducing the concept of a "toolbox" as something that is
> somehow different from a "package".  It seems to me that both are just
> collections of functions.

Here's a scenario: I have a group of signal processing functions that
are not yet included in Octave.  Since the signal processing package
already exists, what do I call this?

How about a toolbox field in the package description then?

Regards
Stefan