markusle wrote: > > We had a long time > ago agreed to go with 3., simply because of the fact that the > octave-forge.eclass does most of the work at this point and there is hence > no good reason to add a new category to the portage tree which contains > many > tens of split octave-forge ebuilds that by themselves simply call the > eclass > and hence don't do anything but waste space. >
I've just started following this list, so I was wondering what the status of octave-forge is on the overlay? As you know, there might be a SoC project to write something to handle the octave packages including octave-forge, but I was wondering if there was any development in this direction in the last month or so? juantxorena wrote: > > Hopefully GCC-4.3 is going to be stabilized soon. Is there any comment > on this? > Does anyone know if this is still a problem? Thanks, --Alex -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/octave-forge-tp21281356p22644279.html Sent from the gentoo-science mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
