| 1 |
markusle wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> We had a long time |
| 4 |
> ago agreed to go with 3., simply because of the fact that the |
| 5 |
> octave-forge.eclass does most of the work at this point and there is hence |
| 6 |
> no good reason to add a new category to the portage tree which contains |
| 7 |
> many |
| 8 |
> tens of split octave-forge ebuilds that by themselves simply call the |
| 9 |
> eclass |
| 10 |
> and hence don't do anything but waste space. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
I've just started following this list, so I was wondering what the status of |
| 14 |
octave-forge is on the overlay? As you know, there might be a SoC project to |
| 15 |
write something to handle the octave packages including octave-forge, but I |
| 16 |
was wondering if there was any development in this direction in the last |
| 17 |
month or so? |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
juantxorena wrote: |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> Hopefully GCC-4.3 is going to be stabilized soon. Is there any comment |
| 23 |
> on this? |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Does anyone know if this is still a problem? |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Thanks, |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
--Alex |
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/octave-forge-tp21281356p22644279.html |
| 33 |
Sent from the gentoo-science mailing list archive at Nabble.com. |
Archives