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

Previous Next

Full log

Message #29 received at 30259 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Kei Kebreau <kkebreau <at> posteo.net>
To: ng0 <ng0 <at> n0.is>
Cc: 30259 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [bug#30259] [PATCH] gnu: octave: Add audio and Qt GUI support.
Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2018 10:57:28 -0400

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

ng0 <ng0 <at> n0.is> writes:

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

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Previous Next

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