> From: roland65
> To: help-octave
> Date: 2017/4/15, Sat 16:53
> Subject: Re: Octave 4.2 binary + all packages in Linux ?
> John W. Eaton wrote
>> Or maybe we could work more
>> toward a "universal binary" that would work on any system.
> Contact me
>> privately and we can discuss it further.
> Thanks for you detailed and argumented answer. I understand the technical
> limitations and respect your position, of course.
> I'm not much aware of the various ways to distribute system independent
> binaries (I only know the static binaries way). So what is the purpose of
> And do you think that snap or flatpack packages could be a solution?
Based on the MXE project there is an MXE-Octave fork available to allow
cross compiling Octave to various target systems.
For linux, not cross build but native build.
For linux, almost dependencies are build from source.
Therefore build binaries almost not depends not libraries from distribution.
I used mxe-octave for linux for two purpose.
1. Build octave on rather old version distribution (e.g. ubuntu 14.04)
Some dependency libraries on old version distribution is too old to build
the current octave.
In the case, MXE octave is useful.
I have not tested but destination directory can be copied to other PC on the same version and same distro.
2. Build octave with large arrays.
octave with large arrays requires fortran dependencies with 64bit index.
(The current dev branch source seems to allow to use 32 bit libraries.)
In that case, MXE octave is useful.
For cross-build for windows, MXE-octave can made an installer and zip archives with octave-forge packages.
But for linux, as far as I know, such feature does not exist.
But I feel that it can be extended for linux.
I tried out Flatpak, Snap, and AppImage. Flatpak appears to be pulling ahead and it was my favorite. What really sold me on it was that MonoDevelop has adopted it for its previews . I tried it out and it worked great.
My hope, was that I'd be able to host my build of Octave here in my S3 and then I could run it from any supported Linux.
I didn't know about that Docker container yet. Great job! Yes, matching Flatpak and Docker containers would be ideal. I think creating a Flatpak may be more difficult if a bunch of the dependencies have to also be built also. tbd.