> -----Original Message----- > From: Søren Hauberg [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2009 10:09 AM
... > I'm not sure what'll happen with the monolithic releases. I > realise that > a lot of people like these bundles, but they take some work > to maintain. > I have no plans on updating the monolithic bundle every time a new > package is released, but I would very much like it if > somebody did this. > I think this depends to a great deal on the distribution maintainers. Using the MSVC windows distribution with quite limited administrative rights (and an admin team for our network that has to deal with a lot of other issues as well), the standard installation and usage approach is to download and install the distribution. This is about the same as our admins do with "commercial", non-free software. In this situation, it is very helpful to have an up-to-date, working / tested set of packages available with them. I think this is the typical approach for many users. So, if possible, we should try to have a "canonical" octave forge release with any "stable" octave release. This would also allow to react on bug reports much more easy as there is some basic "assumption" on the package version once a user reveals his octave version. This might come close to the naming convention of "the other brand": Calling a release by a unified release number (R12, R13) or date (R2008-1) independent of the versions of all the components, but allowing for some canonical reference. Basically, it is the distribution maintainers who are in a position to decide on this, but it would of course be very helpful to agree on such a scheme throughout the whole octave community. Especially, as some user might expect "octave" (as a complete software system, including the forge packages) to behave consistently on different platforms if it is the same release / version. > As to the labeling of individual packages then I think this > will depend > on the individual maintainer. We can agree on some common way of doing > this, but I'm not sure which way is the better. Suggestions > are welcome. > In case of a "release"-orinted naming scheme for distributions, the labeling / naming / version numbering of the individual packages gets less relevant. Just my 2ct from a user perspective. Rolf ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Open Source Business Conference (OSBC), March 24-25, 2009, San Francisco, CA -OSBC tackles the biggest issue in open source: Open Sourcing the Enterprise -Strategies to boost innovation and cut costs with open source participation -Receive a $600 discount off the registration fee with the source code: SFAD http://p.sf.net/sfu/XcvMzF8H _______________________________________________ Octave-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/octave-dev
