This is the mail archive of the cygwin-apps mailing list for the Cygwin project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: emacs support for octave

Hash: SHA1

[replying to cygwin-apps as well, for archival purposes]

According to James R. Phillips on 9/7/2005 6:53 AM:
> octave-otags wouldn't even have to compile, since it only contains shell script
> and man page.  Does it make sense to package something like this separately
> from  octave?

I think it is reasonable as a separate package, if you'd like to maintain
it that way (you have a bit of leeway here, as the maintainer, to divide
the package how you like).

> If so, 1) what is the packaging protocol for something that
> doesn't require compilation;

Check out bash-completion, which is a package without even a configure or
Makefile, for ideas of what has to be done in g-b-s if you are making a
source tarball for a non-compiled package.  On the other hand, since it is
a derivative package, you can provide a binary only tarball with a setup
hint that defers to the main octave source tarball by using the
external-source: line in your setup.hint, rather than trying to create two
source tarballs for the two packages.

 2) How would one express an "or" condition in the
> setup.hint, as in requires emacs or emacs-x11?

emacs-X11 depends on emacs, but making octave-otags depend on emacs-X11
would slurp in a lot of X, just for the use of etags.  So you are probably
okay with just listing emacs as your dependency.

- --
Life is short - so eat dessert first!

Eric Blake   
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (Cygwin)
Comment: Public key at
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird -


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]