From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alex Vong Subject: Should we rename qtoctave to octave and octave to octave-cli? (was Re: Octave & QtOctave) Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2018 22:12:25 +0800 Message-ID: <87o9ad2qly.fsf_-_@gmail.com> References: <875zwnqomz.fsf@posteo.net> <87a7lyzkk2.fsf@gmail.com> <20181124221022.ankjuz4mdpkoohkn@abyayala> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:59579) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gQv9P-0003C0-VA for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 25 Nov 2018 09:12:45 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gQv9L-0000qu-GG for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 25 Nov 2018 09:12:43 -0500 Received: from mail-pg1-x533.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4864:20::533]:34188) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gQv9L-0000qA-4s for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 25 Nov 2018 09:12:39 -0500 Received: by mail-pg1-x533.google.com with SMTP id 17so4940641pgg.1 for ; Sun, 25 Nov 2018 06:12:37 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20181124221022.ankjuz4mdpkoohkn@abyayala> (ng0's message of "Sat, 24 Nov 2018 22:10:22 +0000") List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" To: Brett Gilio Cc: guix-devel --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable ng0@n0.is writes: > names for packages are (mostly) random, although in some > cases following classiifcations (see python-*, r-*, ...). > I am thinking that should we rename qtoctave to octave and octave to octave-cli (or octave-minimal)? Firstly, a new user wanting to install octave will probably do the obvious "guix package -i octave", but currently this command will do the counter-intuitive thing of installing the non-gui version of octave. Instead, they will have to install qtoctave to get the gui. I am in favour of making a package to support as many features as possible, while also making a minimal version for building other packages (or users who desn't want a gui). An example would be emacs vs emacs-minimal. Secondly, I suggest to name the minimal version as "octave-cli" because this is what the octave binary (the command-line only version) is called. Also, running "guix package -A '-cli$'" shows some of the existing packages also follow similar naming convention (I don't know it they have a corresponding gui version though). What do others think? Cheers, Alex > The Qt part of Octave is a separate package because making > it just an output would still pull in Qt and the size difference > is huge. > > Alex Vong transcribed 856 bytes: >> Hello, >>=20 >> Brett Gilio writes: >>=20 >> > Hey all, >> > >> > Happy guix birthday! >> > >> > Quick question, why is the octave package split up into two different >> > public definitions, rather than just having the QtOctave-GUI being a >> > "gui" output, like it is for transmissionBT and some others? >> > >> I would also want to know why it is called qtoctave. My understanding is >> that qtoctave was a GUI frontend to the official octave which is now >> replaced by the official octave GUI. >>=20 >> > Best, >> > Brett Gilio >>=20 >> Cheers, >> Alex --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iHUEARYIAB0WIQQwb8uPLAHCXSnTBVZh71Au9gJS8gUCW/qtyQAKCRBh71Au9gJS 8g/pAP4lfI7QFZlxNSIGrdU6YTLMaBD4rahtgUWY+8CrfDbH2wEA/CBMEmZzFzph Kur9vG6btAX5juIKqMQnwogjQT89kAw= =oNcp -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--