GNU bug report logs - #30259
[PATCH] gnu: octave: Add audio and Qt GUI support.

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: ng0+guixpatches <at> n0.is
To: Kei Kebreau <kkebreau <at> posteo.net>
Cc: ng0+guixpatches <at> n0.is, 30259 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: [bug#30259] [PATCH] gnu: octave: Add audio and Qt GUI support.
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2018 09:18:25 +0000

On Fri, 26 Jan 2018, Kei Kebreau <kkebreau <at> posteo.net> wrote:
> ng0+guixpatches <at> n0.is writes:
>
>> On Fri, 26 Jan 2018, ng0+guixpatches <at> n0.is wrote:
>>> On Fri, 26 Jan 2018, Kei Kebreau <kkebreau <at> 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.
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. /
-- 
ng0 :: https://ea.n0.is
A88C8ADD129828D7EAC02E52E22F9BBFEE348588 :: https://ea.n0.is/keys/

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.