This is an update to the existing ebuild (v2.1.40) in portage to v2.1.44 GNU/Octave. There are later development versions of GNU/Octave, but v2.1.44 is the latest version supported by the octave-forge package, for which I have also submitted an updated ebuild (see Bug #20087). Reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce: 1. 2. 3.
Created attachment 12299 [details] Updated ebuild (v2.1.44) for GNU/Octave.
Created attachment 12301 [details] Updated ebuild (v2.1.44) for GNU/Octave Uploaded the wrong file... doh! This one works.
Hey Shaun. Thanks for submission! I see 2.1.49 is the latest version at this moment available at URI. Seems to build and work fine with your additions. Just one thing: what is dev-libs/hdf5? Is this related to "Hierarchical Data Format"? If yes could you please take a look at #21071, I'll get to processing that one soon as well. Anyway, there is no dev-libs/hdf5 or any hdf package in the tree at the moment. Considering that this is optional dependency, I removed it from the ebuild for now. However in general, if you submit an ebuild which depends on another package, please: 1. Submit an ebuild for corresponding pakage if it does not exist in the official tree. 2. If the dependency did not make it into the tree yet, please include the dependency information in the bug, by marking it dependent on the one containing the necessary ebuild. Also all versions are available as a .gz and .bz2, what was the reason for changing SRC_URI to fetch gz one? I have committed the 2.1.49 version (keymasked, SRC_URI fetchez bz2 file). Please test. George
2.1.50 is out. I guess it's just a simple bump. (Emerging it atm.) Also dev-libs/hdf5 is in the portage.
There are several bugs in version 2.1.49, which are fixed in 2.1.50. Is it possible to add 2.1.50 to the portage?
2.1.50 is set to recommended version. But latest development version is 2.1.52 Upgrade to 2.1.50 is just a simple bump. It would be nice to see this in portage.
Hey guys. Please do not post update reports/requests to the closed bug! If bugzilla misses notification email or I do not react right away it will go unnoticed, because it is, well, closed ;). Also, hdf5 is in tree already. so I added its support (and a local use flag). The ebuild is up now, please test. George
>Please do not post update reports/requests to the closed bug! Hm, actually bugzilla has reopened bunch of bugs few times last year during updates, so this bug might have been open before these update notifications, sorry about that. Nonetheless it is still better to open new bug, as it is a separate issue.. Anyway, what about the 2.1.52? As I see it is (still?) a beta, but how stable is it? It might go into package.mask or ~arch until it gets stable. Is this some kind of naming convention btw, or it just did not stabilize yet? Actually, as it is often quite easy to get an update by just copying an existing ebuild it might not be worth including it into official tree yet. Still it would be nice to know the status of 2.1.52 :). George
