On Sunday March 22 atsui wrote: > 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?
The last work has been Markus eclass implementation which is what you see in the science overlay with git. > 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? This is work in progress. Still some packages are not compiling with gcc-4.3. octave-3 is fine with it. The only worry here is that we want to have octave-3 stabilize, which is currently being done. -- Sébastien
