Re: New mailing list for installing Octave?

[Joe Koski]

on 5/9/05 7:29 PM, Bill Denney at address@hidden wrote:

> I'd be willing to help with this, too.  I'm more of a user (and peripheral
> developer, I guess), but I'd be willing to help as I can.
> 
> Bill
> 
> On Mon, 9 May 2005, Keith Goodman wrote:
> 
>> I'd like to help.
>> 
>> If anyone answers a question on the Octave mailing list that they
>> think should be included in the FAQ, then tag it (put the word FAQ
>> somewhere in your answer). I'll edit some of them and propose them for
>> the FAQ.
>> 
>> In the meantime I'll look over the existing FAQ and write up my
>> experience compiling (unsuccessful so far) the latest Octave CVS on
>> Debian.
>> 
>> On 5/9/05, John W. Eaton <address@hidden> wrote:
>>> On  9-May-2005, Eric Mesa wrote:
>>> 
>>> | I'd be for that.  It would allow us to provide help or get help
>>> | depending on what part of the spectrum we're on.
>>> 
>>> I don't really think it is necessary.  Although traffic on the help
>>> list does seem to be increasing, it is still not that busy.
>>> 
>>> One thing that might help is an improved version of the FAQ.  Would
>>> someone (or group) like to help out by maintaining it?
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> 
>>> jwe
>>> 

Let's keep in mind that the wiki at

  http://wiki.octave.org/

is supposed to be a place to post compile/install information such as this,
as well as any other useful information. A while back some vandals attacked
that site, so now you have to get permission to post there. It is still a
good place to look for ideas, and maybe that's what John is referring to as
the FAQ, or maybe not.

On a Mac, keeping octave updated is a matter of hitting a moving target
while on a moving platform. Both octave and OS X change rapidly, so any
tricks you learn today, may be obsolete tomorrow. At one time I had the
great idea of doing a .dmg installer for octave and octave-forge. After a
bit of research, I realized that it would require quite a bit of time just
to keep up with the octave and OS X evolution of versions. I decided that a
reliable make file would be good enough.

A poster to one of the Apple lists correctly stated that the first few
versions of a new Mac OS are "crippled," mostly by missing header files for
gcc. I tried to build octave-2.1.64 several times before Apple issued an
upgrade to OS X 10.3, and, suddenly, the octave build that was a big problem
completed without errors. We need to file bug reports with Apple, or they
won't know that there's a problem. Knowing that something is missing is the
trick. Maybe our Linux cousins can help us state what's missing to Apple.

Fink can help Mac users, but they're usually running a version or two
behind, and any octave installs from the newer "unstable" branch require a
build-from-source process that is just as lengthy as the standard make file.

There is an Apple list for unix-porting. When stuck, OS X users like me
should probably try there to see if anyone there has solved the problem with
missing headers or libraries. Then we could confidently file the Apple bug
report.

"Freeware" like Octave isn't free, especially on a Mac. There is effort to
install it, and we should all be willing to help keep it going by
contributing effort from time-to-time. I'm sure John won't object to
monetary contributions, either.

Joe





-------------------------------------------------------------
Octave is freely available under the terms of the GNU GPL.

Octave's home on the web:  http://www.octave.org
How to fund new projects:  http://www.octave.org/funding.html
Subscription information:  http://www.octave.org/archive.html
-------------------------------------------------------------