ng0 writes: > ng0@n0.is transcribed 2.4K bytes: >> On Sat, 27 Jan 2018, Kei Kebreau wrote: >> > ng0+guixpatches@n0.is writes: >> > >> >> On Fri, 26 Jan 2018, Kei Kebreau wrote: >> >>> ng0+guixpatches@n0.is writes: >> >>> >> >>>> On Fri, 26 Jan 2018, ng0+guixpatches@n0.is wrote: >> >>>>> On Fri, 26 Jan 2018, Kei Kebreau wrote: >> >>>>>> * gnu/packages/maths.scm (octave)[inputs]: Add qscintilla, >> >>>>>> qt, suitesparse, >> >>>>>> libsndfile, portaudio and alsa-lib. >> >>>>>> [native-inputs]: Add qttools. >> >>>>>> [arguments]: Add 'patch-qscintilla-library-name' phase. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Woo! Nice :) I've started work on the Qt GUI a while ago but >> >>>>> never finished it. Do you think we should split this into octave >> >>>>> and octave-qt (or octave-gui)? Qt is quiet huge and not everyone >> >>>>> will want this I think. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Building this now and getting back to you with results. >> >>>>> >> >> […] >> >>>> Build, compiled, installed, LGTM and works for me. At least the >> >>>> minimal basics I've tested. >> >>>> >> >>> >> >>> Excellent! Thanks for testing this. >> >>> >> >>>> However I still think we should split it later on. I'm not sure >> >>>> if other systems just provide it in one piece or if they provide >> >>>> octave-cli, octave-qt, etc. >> >>>> In my scenario we don't have substitutes for Qt all the time and >> >>>> someone running a >> >>>> machine which isn't capable of building Qt wants to use octave. >> >>> >> >>> I agree that this package should be split. Should a split be made now >> >>> while we leave the lighter CLI-only Octave package available on master, >> >>> or should it be postponed until later on? >> >>> >> >> >> >> It could be done later on, but if you think it wouldn't be too >> >> much work you could do it now. >> > >> > Done, I think! >> > >> >> Ideally this would leave 'octave' as it is and add >> >> 'octave-whatever' ... octave-qt? Debian calls the package (with >> >> just the Qt Gui) "qtoctave". octave-* should be reserved for >> >> extensions (which we don't have right now), so maybe qtoctave >> >> would fit into our naming scheme? >> >> >> >> >> >> / I think I'm going to switch the subscribed address once more, >> >> now that I have proper filtering I don't need the server-side >> >> filtering. / >> > >> > Can you (and/or any bystanders reading this) test these? >> > >> > >> > >> >> LGTM. >> >> qtoctave worked, the normal octave should be alright. >> >> Thank you very much for the work on this. > > Can someone push this? If nothing changed since the review I did, it's > good to go and just catching digital dust. Patch still applies iirc as > I build my active branch with it. Sorry for the delay! I've been swamped with other work. I'll be pushing this today as soon as I build and lint it on my computer. Thanks for your help!