Re: globally installed packages vs. relocatable Octave

[c.]

On 6 Nov 2014, at 22:59, Juan Pablo Carbajal <address@hidden> wrote:

> Are we porting pkg.m form here [1] to core? I will be wiling to help
> if that is the case.
> [1] 
> https://bitbucket.org/carandraug/octave/branch/default?head=d670ed4e5ae64541056dec352af0901270a381c9
> 
> This pkg.m is more modular than the current version.

Juan Pablo, 

I haven't looked at the code in your repository 
for a long time but I remeber that it was definitely 
much more readable and easy to maintain than the 
current version of pkg.m 

On the other hand I vaguely recall there were quite a few
missing features with respect to the current version.
I don't remember what those missing features were though,
do you?

Could you make a list of what you think it would take
to make the new pkg.m a viable replacement for the current
one and how much time it would take to do so?

c.