From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: swedebugia Subject: Re: Octave & QtOctave Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2018 17:21:31 +0100 Message-ID: References: <875zwnqomz.fsf@posteo.net> <87a7lyzkk2.fsf@gmail.com> <20181124221022.ankjuz4mdpkoohkn@abyayala> <87k1l1w3n0.fsf@gnu.org> <87in0ijtku.fsf@posteo.net> <87va4h5vhr.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:57975) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gSOyW-0001OZ-52 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 29 Nov 2018 11:15:37 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gSOyS-0003Dd-6Z for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 29 Nov 2018 11:15:36 -0500 Received: from mx1.riseup.net ([198.252.153.129]:46353) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gSOyR-0003Cc-T1 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 29 Nov 2018 11:15:32 -0500 Received: from cotinga.riseup.net (cotinga-pn.riseup.net [10.0.1.164]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.riseup.net", Issuer "COMODO RSA Domain Validation Secure Server CA" (verified OK)) by mx1.riseup.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5AC921A0BAD for ; Thu, 29 Nov 2018 08:15:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cotinga.riseup.net with ESMTPSA id A87E167468 for ; Thu, 29 Nov 2018 08:15:27 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <87va4h5vhr.fsf@gnu.org> Content-Language: en-US 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: guix-devel@gnu.org On 2018-11-28 11:47, Ludovic Court=C3=A8s wrote: > Kei Kebreau skribis: snip >> >> 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 C= LI >> package does include some non-essential dependencies. >=20 > Makes sense to me. If others agree with this (=E2=80=9Coctave-cli=E2=80= =9D rather than > =E2=80=9Coctave-minimal=E2=80=9D), go ahead! I agree. --=20 Cheers Swedebugia