|
From: | John W. Eaton |
Subject: | Re: Octave binary naming |
Date: | Fri, 04 Oct 2013 11:55:03 -0400 |
User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:10.0.12) Gecko/20130116 Icedove/10.0.12 |
On 10/04/2013 11:35 AM, Dmitry Roshchin wrote:
Hello. I'm working on packaging new octave version for openSUSE. Current development version (3.7.7) contains binaries "octave" and "octave-cli". I want to split octave packages to "octave" (for terminal usage) and "octave- gui" (for users who want GUI). But in this case it's more logical to have "octave" binary instead of "octave-cli" for backward compatibility and "octave-gui". Are there any reasons for current naming?
I don't think Octave should change its name just because we add a new feature.
The octave-cli binary is not linked with the GUI libraries. It's provided in case you want to save a little space when running Octave without the GUI.
The octave binary is linked with the GUI libraries, but it will not start the GUI unless it is running interactively. Things like
octave myscript echo "some command" | octave will not start the GUI.Why not package "octave" and "octave-cli" if you want to allow people to avoid dragging in all the Qt dependencies if they don't want them? Other programs do similar things. For example, gnuplot and gnuplot-nox on my Debian system.
jwe
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |