ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes: > Kei Kebreau skribis: > >> ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes: >> >>> Hello, >>> >>> ng0@n0.is skribis: >>> >>>> names for packages are (mostly) random, although in some >>>> cases following classiifcations (see python-*, r-*, ...). >>> >>> That randomness is very limited in practice, if I may. :-) >>> >>> https://gnu.org/software/guix/manual/en/html_node/Package-Naming.html >>> >>> “qtoctave” was added by Kei. WDYT about the naming issue, Kei? >>> >>> Ludo’. >> >> I agree with ng0 that Octave and its GUI interface should be kept in >> separate packages, as the difference in size is more than 5000 MiB. >> I also agree that the GUI package should be named "octave", but I don't >> know whether the CLI package should be named "octave-minimal" or >> "octave-cli". I find myself leaning toward "octave-cli" because the CLI >> package does include some non-essential dependencies. > > Makes sense to me. If others agree with this (“octave-cli” rather than > “octave-minimal”), go ahead! > > Ludo’. Sorry, the last message didn't include the earlier contributors to this thread. Here are two tentative patches that make the changes we've discussed. Also, should we make a deprecated-package definition for qtoctave?