Octave 3.0 successfully built

[Ben Abbott]

On Jan 6, 2008, at 10:49 AM, Sergei Steshenko wrote:

>
> --- "John W. Eaton" <jwe at bevo.che.wisc.edu> wrote:
>
>> On  5-Jan-2008, Sergei Steshenko wrote:
>>
>> | Of course, not all of them.
>> |
>> | Because both tools and libraries have their dependencies too.
>>
>> Most people will simply install packages for the dependencies anyway,
>> so secondary dependencies will be handled in some automatic way.  In
>> any case, I think it is reasonable to only list the first level of
>> dependencies.  Why should the Octave documentation list build
>> dependencies for other packages?  Shouldn't those other dependencies
>> be handled recursively (i.e., I'll find out that there are
>> dependencies for building qhull when I build it)?
>>
>> jwe
>>
>
> I am amused by you logic :-) - specifically, by
>
> "I'll find out that there are dependencies for building qhull when I  
> build it"
> .
>
> Of course you will.
>
> So, why not to be even more lazy and not to modify the above  
> statement to become:
>
> "I'll find out that there are dependencies for building _octave_  
> when I build it"
>
> ?
>
> Since I've built more than 200 targets from source, I pretty damn  
> well know what
> chasing dependencies is.
>
> That's why I've sent the full (except very thin layer of system  
> libraries like
> X*, standard "C" library, etc.) 'octave' dependency tree.
>
> Regards,
>  Sergei.


I believe the point was to leave the secondary dependencies to the  
primary dependencies (their documentation should specify them).

To do otherwise, sets a chain on domino's in motion and makes the list  
very difficult to manage and maintain (esp for a Octave which runs on  
many different OSs and architectures).

Ben