Re: Displaying an animation / "movie"

[David Bateman]

Thomas Weber wrote:
> Am Montag, den 15.09.2008, 13:12 +0200 schrieb Francesco Potorti`:
>   
> > > > > Have you tried the 'video' package from Octave-Forge? I've never used
> > > > > it, but I'm under the impression that it works with fairly recent
> > > > > versions of ffmpeg.
> > > > >           
> > Allright, waiting for Debian to produce an octave-video package, 
> >     
>
> I don't intend to add any more octave-forge packages to Debian until
> octave-forge's release process is fixed (and yes, it currently is
> broken).
>
> By "fixed" I mean that:
> 1) Packages that had no changes are not released with a new version
> number.
>   
I agree with this point, and have attempted to have a fix for it in the 
build process, though it only partly works and not when a different 
person does the build or a different build machine (ie autoconf) is 
used. In that case the package is arbitrarily flagged as being modified 
and the version number needs to be increased.. Yes we shoudl fix this..

> 2) The total number of packages is reduced.
>   
This I can't agree with in general, but
> Examples: 
> Physicalconstants
> *One* .m file, last code change in Feb 2007. Releases since then: 6(!)
>   
Yes that should probably go somewhere else.

> control:
> Two .m files, last code change in Dec 2007. Released version then:
> 1.0.5, current: 1.0.7.
>   
The control toolbox from Octave will transition here for an octave-forge 
release against an Octave 3.2 version. So this one stays.

> civil:
> Three .m files, last code change not in SVN! All of them dealing with
> ODEs, making them a perfect candidate for odepkg.
>   
Maybe.. So submit a patch. These things don't fix themselves.

> And so on. Guys, merging packages is far better then introducing your
> own new pet package (e.g., "general" and miscellaneous" are perfect
> candidates for merging - what's their difference, actually?). In fact,
> would you go looking in the civil package for solving ODEs?
>   
Original "general" and "miscellaneous" mirrored equivalent directories 
in Octave itself. This was useful when octave-forge shadowed Octave core 
functions. Shadowing is discouraged and so yes it now makes sense to 
merge these packages into a single package.. Submit/commit a patch.

> Personally I think that quite some packages should simply be kicked, as
> their "maintainers" don't care about them. 
Well, the only reason I see for kicking packages is if they no longer 
work with the current versions of Octave. In that case they aren't 
kicked from the SVN, they just should have the NOINSTALL file placed in 
them, and the packages won't be created.

Perhaps, we can create an unmaintained directory and transition orphaned 
packages to this directory. Then the downstream maintainers can choose 
or not to install these packages...

> It's neither Soren's nor
> David's job to care for this ever growing pile of code.
>   
This I couldn't agree with more.. I was so happy when Soren said he'd 
take over the releases :-)

D.





>         Thomas
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Help-octave mailing list
> address@hidden
> https://www-old.cae.wisc.edu/mailman/listinfo/help-octave
>
>   


--
David Bateman                                address@hidden
Motorola Labs - Paris                        +33 1 69 35 48 04 (Ph) 
Parc Les Algorithmes, Commune de St Aubin    +33 6 72 01 06 33 (Mob) 
91193 Gif-Sur-Yvette FRANCE                  +33 1 69 35 77 01 (Fax) 

The information contained in this communication has been classified as: 

[x] General Business Information 
[ ] Motorola Internal Use Only 
[ ] Motorola Confidential Proprietary