Re: packaging aesthetics

[Søren Hauberg]

David Bateman skrev:
> Ok, so if the goal is just to make the package installation of a bunch
> of m-files easier, then keeping the existing package structure and
> allowing a bunch of m-files package should be possible. The issue I see
> is that we currently have two required files. The first is the
> DESCRIPTION which is the packaging information and the second COPYING is
> the license for the code. Do we relax that requirement? If so, how do we
> get the required fields of DESCRIPTION (Name, Version, Date, Author,
> Maintainer, Title, Description)?
Name (and possibly version) could come from the file name (e.g. 
image-1.0.0.tar.gz). The rest are mainly of interest in generating web 
pages, RPM packages , etc. So perhaps the DESCRIPTION file could just be 
required for packages in octave-forge?

> The easiest, would be to allow a package with a bunch of m-files and a
> COPYING and DESCRIPTION file. Is that compromise enough?
We could remove the need for the COPYING file. I would prefer if we 
could educate people on the need of licenses, but it's a though fight. 
Most of the matlab code on the web doesn't have a license, so if we 
don't require the COPYING file we would appeal to the matlab crowd.

I should note that I'm not a fan of not requiring DESCRIPTION and 
COPYING, but it would be possible.

Søren