Bug#741097: [Pkg-octave-devel] Bug#741097: octave: nox package of Octave

2014-03-22 Thread Arno Onken
On 18.03.2014 07:07, Thomas Weber wrote:
 I think you should bring up that topic on upstream's maintainer list.[1] I
 don't think we have that many machines which are constrained by the
 additional disk space, so if we as Debian maintainers complain, it is
 just not the same as a user who really has the hardware (perceived
 issue vs. real problem).

Why is this relevant for upstream at this point? I searched in the
upstream maintainers archives but I couldn't find any proposal to
abandon support for command line only compilation or compilation without
Java or LLVM altogether. I was therefore assuming that this is a
packaging and compile options only issue.

 BTW, can you give an example of one of your low ressource machines?

I was mostly referring to my SheevaPlug, FritzBox and Android device
with a Debian chroot. But then there is also my Neo Freerunner GTA02 and
Rasberry Pi. Granted, I could extend disk space for some of these
devices but that can be a pain. The GTA02, for instance, is extremely
picky about supported SD cards.

Even without any graphical feedback, I find Octave very useful in batch
mode and for extended calculator-like operation on the move. Again,
please keep in mind that this is a whishlist bug report. I would
certainly have use for a limited resource package, but maybe that's just me.

Thanks,
Arno


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org



Bug#741097: [Pkg-octave-devel] Bug#741097: octave: nox package of Octave

2014-03-18 Thread Thomas Weber
On Sat, Mar 08, 2014 at 06:04:16PM +, Arno Onken wrote:
 Thanks for your quick response.
 
 I have Octave running on a couple of low resource devices which don't
 even have X. On these systems, unnecessary dependencies are a waste of
 precious space.
 [...]
 I wasn't aware of this discussion. Your comparison of required disk
 space was very informative. Indeed, the Qt dependency doesn't make a big
 difference when compared to the additional Java and LLVM dependencies.
 But the minimum installation size more than doubles from 3.6.4 to 3.8.0.
 So I think a low resources package with more dependencies striped off
 would actually be very useful.

I think you should bring up that topic on upstream's maintainer list.[1] I
don't think we have that many machines which are constrained by the
additional disk space, so if we as Debian maintainers complain, it is
just not the same as a user who really has the hardware (perceived
issue vs. real problem).

BTW, can you give an example of one of your low ressource machines?

[1] https://mailman.cae.wisc.edu/listinfo/octave-maintainers

Thomas


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org