From maintainers-request at octave dot org Sun Jun 19 13:07:10 2005
Subject: Re: packaging system
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?S=F8ren_Hauberg?= <soren at hauberg dot org>
To: Stefan van der Walt <stefan at sun dot ac dot za>
CC: "John W. Eaton" <jwe at bevo dot che dot wisc dot edu>, maintainers@octave.org
Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2005 20:06:24 +0200

Stefan van der Walt wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 19, 2005 at 12:26:14PM +0200, Søren Hauberg wrote:
>>Introducing a toolbox field in DESCRIPTION doesn't make sense to as the 
>>package would then need to know which packages depends  on it.
> 
> Why?  There are a set set of toolboxes.  Your package must just know
> to which toolbox it contributes?  The problem that we were discussing
> earlier, is what happens when your package contributes to more than
> one toolbox.
If I write a package and someone else desides to create another package 
that uses my packagee, how would I know?

> Anyway, I don't see it being a major hassle: include an INDEX file
> with each package, and let Octave parse those index files whenever
> someone wants help('toolbox').  We have the code to do so already.
I guess we can do that - I just don't see why. All the functions in a 
package can be found in a seperate directory, so we have the information 
the INDEX file would contain available. Or, are you suggesting that the 
INDEX file also would include the functions from the dependend packages?

/Søren
> Regards
> Stéfan
>