[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Splitting a package--reviews needed?



>>>>> "QS" == Quentin Spencer  writes:

QS> I am the maintainer of octave-forge, a set of add-on packages for
QS> octave. The structure of the source package has been changed to
QS> separate it into a number of sub-packages. I think it would be a
QS> good idea to follow this structure in the Fedora package,
QS> particularly since some sub-packages have external dependencies
QS> that not all users may really need. The octave-forge package would
QS> become a meta-package that just installs all of the
QS> sub-packages. The question here is, should each of the new
QS> sub-packages be subject to its own review? It's a total of almost
QS> 40 packages, considerably more than I currently maintain, and I'm
QS> worried that this will significantly increase the time commitment,
QS> which I'm not sure I can do. Is there anyone out there who has a
QS> particular interest in any of the octave-forge sub-packages who
QS> may be interested in maintaining it?

Hi Quentin,

I'm interested in helping maintain octave-forge. I'm using octave
quite extensively now, although I'm not sure how many packages I use
are part of octave-forge itself, either way, I'm interested in keeping
as many octave-forge packages alive in Fedora.  I currently maintain
the bioperl and biopython packages (and some dependencies), see:

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/AlexLancaster

I looked a bit at the new octave-forge system, perhaps we could put
all the octave-forge packages in the "Main" repository into one
package and separately package the "Extras" packages if they require
some extra large dependencies.  That would cut down on the number of
new packages to review.

Alex


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]