[Pkg-octave-devel] replacement for /usr/share/cdbs/1/class/octave-pkg.mk

[Sébastien Villemot]

kamaraju kusumanchi <raju.mailinglists at gmail.com> writes:

> 2012/4/15 Sébastien Villemot <sebastien.villemot at ens.fr>:
>> kamaraju kusumanchi <raju.mailinglists at gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 3:50 PM, Rafael Laboissiere
>>> <rafael at laboissiere.net> wrote:
>>>> * kamaraju kusumanchi <raju.mailinglists at gmail.com> [2012-04-15 15:52]:
>>>>
>>>>> In the octave-time package, the debian/rules file calls
>>>>>
>>>>> include /usr/share/cdbs/1/class/octave-pkg.mk
>>>>>
>>>>> I see that this file is provided by octave-pkg-dev. Is there a
>>>>> replacement for this in liboctave-dev or should I leave the
>>>>> Build-Depends on octave-pkg-dev for now?
>>>>>
>>>>> Other than this, the only modification seems to be
>>>>>
>>>>> ${octave:Depends} -> octave
>>>>>
>>>>> in the Depends field of debian/control . What do you guys think?
>>>>
>>>> Which package are you talking from?
>>>>
>>>
>>> I am talking about the octave-time package. I mentioned it in the
>>> first sentence!
>>
>> Why do you want to modify the dependencies of this package? It has
>> already been migrated to Octave 3.6 (as all Octave-Forge packages) and
>> as far as I know it works fine.
>
> According to http://release.debian.org/transitions/html/octave.html ,
> the package name still shows up in the transitions page. When I looked
> into it, these are the only two changes I could find. If you think,
> the transition is already done, perhaps we should consider removing it
> from there?

It appears on this page, but since it is not marked with red crosses, it
is not a problem. Only the packages with red crosses represent a problem
for the migration. And among the problematic packages, two are
maintained by the Debian Octave Group (semidef-oct and octave-parallel)
and we are probably going to request their removal.

So from the point of view of the Debian Octave Group, the transition is
over. The remaining issues have to be dealt with the respective
maintainers of the other packages, and we already filed bugs against
their packages (with patches). So there is not much than we can do about
it now. This is in the hands of the Release Team.

Thanks for your help anyways.

-- 
Sébastien Villemot
Researcher in Economics & Debian Maintainer
http://www.dynare.org/sebastien
Phone: +33-1-40-77-84-04 - GPG Key: 4096R/381A7594
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 835 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-octave-devel/attachments/20120415/e7a0010f/attachment-0001.pgp>