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,
>> 
>> Brett Gilio <brettg@posteo.net> writes:
>> 
>> > 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.
>> 
>> > Best,
>> > Brett Gilio
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> Alex