Re: [forge] physicalconstants ?

[Carnë Draug]

On 12 February 2014 16:51, Marco Atzeri <address@hidden> wrote:
>
> On 12/02/2014 15:31, c. wrote:
>>
>> On 11 Feb 2014, at 22:45, Marco Atzeri <address@hidden> wrote:
>>
>>> Am I wrong or
>>> http://sourceforge.net/p/octave/code/12548/
>>>
>>> removed the version 2 that Carlo just updated, while in miscellaneous we
>>> have the old version ?
>>>
>> Yes,
>>
>> Carnė did that because he doesn't want a new package.
>>
>> I would be glad to maintain physicalconstants but I don't care about
>> maintaining
>> miscellaneous (and general upon which miscellaneous depends) so I'm sorry,
>> you have to stick to the unmaintained version of physicalconstants.
>>
>
> so to resume :
> - we had a physicalconstants standalone package for ages
> - it was moved to miscellaneous as the maintainer disappear and
>   roughly every four year we need a serious update
> - we have a new volunteer and we stick to the old version
>   in miscellaneous
>
> Really, I do not follow the logic. I was assuming the reverse

This has been extensively discussed already [1]. It basically boils down to:

1) not repeat the same mistakes, which in this case was having
physicalconstants as a separate package.
2) not create a separate package with individual functions because
someone requires only that single function instead of an entire
package.

I do have some complains about your wording of "old version", as well
as Carlo's of "unmaintained version of physicalconstants":

1) that function was fixed for the merge into the miscellaneous
package. It is not the same that was previously distributed as a
stand-alone package.
2) It is not unmaintained and as far as we know, it's not broken
either. If you are aware of any problem with it, please fill a bug
report.

> So now I need to re-look at the physicalconstants scenario....

I'm sorry that this is causing trouble for you. That separate
physicalconstants directory was only "resuscitated" for 2 weeks so it
was only a matter of really bad timing. Note that the python script
that is on the tarball does not need to be installed. It is only used
to generate the m file automatically, and is there so that next time
the online table gets updated, a new up to date function, can be
created easily.

On 12 February 2014 18:18, c. <address@hidden> wrote:
>
> On 12 Feb 2014, at 17:51, Marco Atzeri <address@hidden> wrote:
>
>> I had already prepared the binary of 2.0 version for cygwin and I was ready 
>> to deploy the ~ 51 forge packages with the new octave
>> 3.8.0 release. (I am only waiting your update of integration).
>
> OK, I'll do that tonite.

Please do not forget the licensing issue that comes with it [2]. This
has been asked before [3, 4].

Carnë

[1] 
http://octave.1599824.n4.nabble.com/very-small-packages-merge-into-general-miscelleneous-or-move-into-core-td4660966.html
[2] 
http://octave.1599824.n4.nabble.com/Removing-packages-from-Octave-Forge-tp4660799p4660957.html
[3] http://octave.1599824.n4.nabble.com/integration-toolbox-td1606637.html
[4] http://octave.1599824.n4.nabble.com/missing-licenses-td1613923.html