Kei Kebreau <kkebreau@posteo.net> writes:

> ng0 <ng0@n0.is> writes:
>
>> ng0@n0.is transcribed 2.4K bytes:
>>> On Sat, 27 Jan 2018, Kei Kebreau <kkebreau@posteo.net> wrote:
>>> > ng0+guixpatches@n0.is writes:
>>> >
>>> >> On Fri, 26 Jan 2018, Kei Kebreau <kkebreau@posteo.net> wrote:
>>> >>> ng0+guixpatches@n0.is writes:
>>> >>>
>>> >>>> On Fri, 26 Jan 2018, ng0+guixpatches@n0.is wrote:
>>> >>>>> On Fri, 26 Jan 2018, Kei Kebreau <kkebreau@posteo.net> 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!