>>>>> "QS" == Quentin Spencer writes: QS> I am the maintainer of octave-forge, a set of add-on packages for QS> octave. The structure of the source package has been changed to QS> separate it into a number of sub-packages. I think it would be a QS> good idea to follow this structure in the Fedora package, QS> particularly since some sub-packages have external dependencies QS> that not all users may really need. The octave-forge package would QS> become a meta-package that just installs all of the QS> sub-packages. The question here is, should each of the new QS> sub-packages be subject to its own review? It's a total of almost QS> 40 packages, considerably more than I currently maintain, and I'm QS> worried that this will significantly increase the time commitment, QS> which I'm not sure I can do. Is there anyone out there who has a QS> particular interest in any of the octave-forge sub-packages who QS> may be interested in maintaining it? Hi Quentin, I'm interested in helping maintain octave-forge. I'm using octave quite extensively now, although I'm not sure how many packages I use are part of octave-forge itself, either way, I'm interested in keeping as many octave-forge packages alive in Fedora. I currently maintain the bioperl and biopython packages (and some dependencies), see: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/AlexLancaster I looked a bit at the new octave-forge system, perhaps we could put all the octave-forge packages in the "Main" repository into one package and separately package the "Extras" packages if they require some extra large dependencies. That would cut down on the number of new packages to review. Alex -- Fedora-maintainers mailing list Fedora-maintainers@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers -- Fedora-maintainers-readonly mailing list Fedora-maintainers-readonly@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers-readonly
