"optim needs miscellaneous >= 1.0.10" problem

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
14 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

"optim needs miscellaneous >= 1.0.10" problem

Sergei Steshenko
Hello,

in my current attempt to build all the packages I've encountered the following problem:

"
error: the following dependencies where unsatisfied:
   optim needs miscellaneous >= 1.0.10
".

Looking at http://octave.sourceforge.net/miscellaneous/index.html I see:

"
miscellaneous
Package Version:    1.1.0
".

I am building the packages with self-built octave-3.4.2.

So, it looks like version comparison is broken.

Which function in which package does version comparison ?

Thanks,
  Sergei.
_______________________________________________
Help-octave mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mailman.cae.wisc.edu/listinfo/help-octave
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: "optim needs miscellaneous >= 1.0.10" problem

Sergei Steshenko




----- Original Message -----

> From: Sergei Steshenko <[hidden email]>
> To: "[hidden email]" <[hidden email]>
> Cc:
> Sent: Sunday, April 1, 2012 8:47 AM
> Subject: "optim needs miscellaneous >= 1.0.10" problem
>
> Hello,
>
> in my current attempt to build all the packages I've encountered the
> following problem:
>
> "
> error: the following dependencies where unsatisfied:
>    optim needs miscellaneous >= 1.0.10
> ".
>
> Looking at http://octave.sourceforge.net/miscellaneous/index.html I see:
>
> "
> miscellaneous
> Package Version:    1.1.0
> ".
>
> I am building the packages with self-built octave-3.4.2.
>
> So, it looks like version comparison is broken.
>
> Which function in which package does version comparison ?
>
> Thanks,
>   Sergei.
>

OK, looking deeper I've found:
"
miscellaneous needs octave >= 3.6.0
"

which, of course, is not my case.

...

The times were good when you guys were releasing a _bundle_ compatible with certain Octave version.

Thanks,
  Sergei.

_______________________________________________
Help-octave mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mailman.cae.wisc.edu/listinfo/help-octave
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: "optim needs miscellaneous >= 1.0.10" problem

Thomas Weber-3
On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 10:52:59PM -0700, Sergei Steshenko wrote:

> OK, looking deeper I've found:
> "
> miscellaneous needs octave >= 3.6.0
> "
>
> which, of course, is not my case.
>
> ...
>
> The times were good when you guys were releasing a _bundle_ compatible with certain Octave version.

Wrong list, octave-forge is maintained elsewhere. I am however 100%
positive that no one will step in your way of testing individual
packages and creating a bundle from them.

        Thomas
_______________________________________________
Help-octave mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mailman.cae.wisc.edu/listinfo/help-octave
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: "optim needs miscellaneous >= 1.0.10" problem

Sergei Steshenko




----- Original Message -----

> From: Thomas Weber <[hidden email]>
> To: Sergei Steshenko <[hidden email]>
> Cc: "[hidden email]" <[hidden email]>
> Sent: Sunday, April 1, 2012 1:28 PM
> Subject: Re: "optim needs miscellaneous >= 1.0.10" problem
>
> On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 10:52:59PM -0700, Sergei Steshenko wrote:
>>  OK, looking deeper I've found:
>>  "
>>  miscellaneous needs octave >= 3.6.0
>>  "
>>
>>  which, of course, is not my case.
>>
>>  ...
>>
>>  The times were good when you guys were releasing a _bundle_ compatible with
> certain Octave version.
>
> Wrong list, octave-forge is maintained elsewhere. I am however 100%
> positive that no one will step in your way of testing individual
> packages and creating a bundle from them.
>
>     Thomas
>

I like your answer. I think Mathworks sales and marketing folks will like it even more - an excellent bullet why customers should _not_use Octave.

Because they will spend their valuable time figuring out which package versions are (in)compatible with which Octave versions.

Well, it took me several years to convince Octave developers to use bug tracking system instead of just a mailing list.

I'm wondering hoe many years it will take to convince that Octave and packages should be released in conjunction with each other.


Regards,
  Sergei.
_______________________________________________
Help-octave mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mailman.cae.wisc.edu/listinfo/help-octave
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: "optim needs miscellaneous >= 1.0.10" problem

Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso-2
On 1 April 2012 17:02, Sergei Steshenko <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I'm wondering hoe many years it will take to convince that Octave
> and packages should be released in conjunction with each other.

We're not doing this to spite you. OF Packages are released separately
because it's too much work to do it together and OF package developers
sometimes see Octave as a foreign black box instead of something they
should work with.

- Jordi G. H.
_______________________________________________
Help-octave mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mailman.cae.wisc.edu/listinfo/help-octave
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: "optim needs miscellaneous >= 1.0.10" problem

Thomas Weber-3
In reply to this post by Sergei Steshenko
On Sun, Apr 01, 2012 at 02:02:46PM -0700, Sergei Steshenko wrote:
>
> I like your answer. I think Mathworks sales and marketing folks will
> like it even more - an excellent bullet why customers should _not_use
> Octave.
>
> Because they will spend their valuable time figuring out which package versions are (in)compatible with which Octave versions.

ROFL; I have real world experience with Matlab customer service - the
fact that 2 lines of code were enough to crash Matlab brought me that
honor.

And I've seen enough Matlab code that needed changes for a new Matlab
version to know that API stability is something that is essentially
unknown in Matlab.

> Well, it took me several years to convince Octave developers to use
> bug tracking system instead of just a mailing list.

I don't think your input had any influcence in that matter, one way or
another.

> I'm wondering hoe many years it will take to convince that Octave and
> packages should be released in conjunction with each other.

I don't think you actually understood what I wrote. The intersection
between octave-forge developers and Octave developers is essentially
zero. You are not talking to the right people - you might as well talk
to the Python developers about the Perl release schedule.

        Thomas
_______________________________________________
Help-octave mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mailman.cae.wisc.edu/listinfo/help-octave
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: "optim needs miscellaneous >= 1.0.10" problem

Alexander Hansen-2
In reply to this post by Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso-2
On 4/1/12 2:19 PM, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote:

> On 1 April 2012 17:02, Sergei Steshenko<[hidden email]>  wrote:
>> I'm wondering hoe many years it will take to convince that Octave
>> and packages should be released in conjunction with each other.
> We're not doing this to spite you. OF Packages are released separately
> because it's too much work to do it together and OF package developers
> sometimes see Octave as a foreign black box instead of something they
> should work with.
>
> - Jordi G. H.
> _______________________________________________
> Help-octave mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://mailman.cae.wisc.edu/listinfo/help-octave
It's definitely hard to coordinate releases when you're a group of
volunteers working in geographically disparate locations.

Downstream packagers of Octave and Octave Forge can and do make up
bundles for their own distributions.  For example, I've made up bundles
for the Fink project on Mac OS X for Octave 3.0.5, 3.2.4, 3.4.3, 3.6.0
and 3.6.1.  When an Octave Forge package is updated, but not compatible
with older Octaves, I keep the old version available.

Since Fink is a source-based distribution, fundamentally, this relies on
the Octave Forge developers being so kind as to retain the older
versions of their package sources. :-)  I definitely appreciate this.

--
Alexander Hansen

_______________________________________________
Help-octave mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mailman.cae.wisc.edu/listinfo/help-octave
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: "optim needs miscellaneous >= 1.0.10" problem

John W. Eaton
Administrator
In reply to this post by Sergei Steshenko
On  1-Apr-2012, Sergei Steshenko wrote:

| Well, it took me several years to convince Octave developers to use bug tracking system instead of just a mailing list.

I don't recall that your opinions had anything at all to do with that
decision.

jwe
_______________________________________________
Help-octave mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mailman.cae.wisc.edu/listinfo/help-octave
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: "optim needs miscellaneous >= 1.0.10" problem

marco atzeri-2
In reply to this post by Alexander Hansen-2
On 4/1/2012 11:35 PM, Alexander Hansen wrote:

> On 4/1/12 2:19 PM, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote:
>> On 1 April 2012 17:02, Sergei Steshenko<[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> I'm wondering hoe many years it will take to convince that Octave
>>> and packages should be released in conjunction with each other.
>> We're not doing this to spite you. OF Packages are released separately
>> because it's too much work to do it together and OF package developers
>> sometimes see Octave as a foreign black box instead of something they
>> should work with.
>>
>> - Jordi G. H.
>> _______________________________________________
>> Help-octave mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://mailman.cae.wisc.edu/listinfo/help-octave
> It's definitely hard to coordinate releases when you're a group of
> volunteers working in geographically disparate locations.
>
> Downstream packagers of Octave and Octave Forge can and do make up
> bundles for their own distributions. For example, I've made up bundles
> for the Fink project on Mac OS X for Octave 3.0.5, 3.2.4, 3.4.3, 3.6.0
> and 3.6.1. When an Octave Forge package is updated, but not compatible
> with older Octaves, I keep the old version available.
>
> Since Fink is a source-based distribution, fundamentally, this relies on
> the Octave Forge developers being so kind as to retain the older
> versions of their package sources. :-) I definitely appreciate this.
>

Exactly the same for cygwin.
Together with the release of the octave-3.6.1 package
I bundled a certain amount of forge packages revising my previous
bundle for 3.4.2.
Same package were added, some packages were downloaded
from SVN repository as latest patches to guarantee 3.6.1
compatibility were not yet available on the released packages.

There are more than 89 packages in forge, most are good
some are immature and some are old and broken with no more maintainers.
Others need dependencies not available on cygwin, so at
2012-02-24 I took only 64 packages.
Alexander is making the same for Fink and Rafel for Debian.

So Sergei please cool down, every one here is gifting its time
to the community.
Help is welcome but suggestions how the others should spend
their time are useless.

Regards
Marco





_______________________________________________
Help-octave mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mailman.cae.wisc.edu/listinfo/help-octave
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: "optim needs miscellaneous >= 1.0.10" problem

Sergei Steshenko
In reply to this post by Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso-2




----- Original Message -----

> From: Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso <[hidden email]>
> To: Sergei Steshenko <[hidden email]>
> Cc: Thomas Weber <[hidden email]>; "[hidden email]" <[hidden email]>
> Sent: Monday, April 2, 2012 12:19 AM
> Subject: Re: "optim needs miscellaneous >= 1.0.10" problem
>
> On 1 April 2012 17:02, Sergei Steshenko <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>  I'm wondering hoe many years it will take to convince that Octave
>>  and packages should be released in conjunction with each other.
>
> We're not doing this to spite you. OF Packages are released separately
> because it's too much work to do it together and OF package developers
> sometimes see Octave as a foreign black box instead of something they
> should work with.
>
> - Jordi G. H.
>

You are doing this because of lack of understanding of importance of proper integration and QA.

Had you been releasing Octave and packages together, you would have had much less bugs in Octave pkg.m and in packages themselves. I.e. building _all_ the packages with an Octave version is a very good test for both Octave and packages.

I am saying _very_ tirvial things - look at a Linux distro for example - it is released with thousands of packages. And if a package from an official repository can't be installed, it is considered to be a bug.

Regards,
  Sergei.

_______________________________________________
Help-octave mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mailman.cae.wisc.edu/listinfo/help-octave
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: "optim needs miscellaneous >= 1.0.10" problem

Sergei Steshenko
In reply to this post by Thomas Weber-3




----- Original Message -----
> From: Thomas Weber <[hidden email]>
> To: Sergei Steshenko <[hidden email]>
> Cc: "[hidden email]" <[hidden email]>
> Sent: Monday, April 2, 2012 12:25 AM
> Subject: Re: "optim needs miscellaneous >= 1.0.10" problem
>
[snip]
> I don't think you actually understood what I wrote. The intersection
> between octave-forge developers and Octave developers is essentially
> zero. You are not talking to the right people - you might as well talk
> to the Python developers about the Perl release schedule.
>
>     Thomas
>

"The intersection between octave-forge developers and Octave developers is essentially zero" - which means Octave and octave-forge development models are _broken_.

Regards,
  Sergei.

_______________________________________________
Help-octave mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mailman.cae.wisc.edu/listinfo/help-octave
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: "optim needs miscellaneous >= 1.0.10" problem

marco atzeri-2
On 4/3/2012 10:45 AM, Sergei Steshenko wrote:

>

>>
> [snip]
>> I don't think you actually understood what I wrote. The intersection
>> between octave-forge developers and Octave developers is essentially
>> zero. You are not talking to the right people - you might as well talk
>> to the Python developers about the Perl release schedule.
>>
>>      Thomas
>>
>
> "The intersection between octave-forge developers and Octave developers is essentially zero" - which means Octave and octave-forge development models are _broken_.
>
> Regards,
>    Sergei.

only your understanding of it is broken

_______________________________________________
Help-octave mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mailman.cae.wisc.edu/listinfo/help-octave
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: "optim needs miscellaneous >= 1.0.10" problem

Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso-2
In reply to this post by Sergei Steshenko
2012/4/3 Sergei Steshenko <[hidden email]>:
> You are doing this because of lack of understanding of importance of proper integration and QA.

You are welcome to fix Octave-Forge packaging however you see fit. In
fact, please do.

- Jordi G. H.
_______________________________________________
Help-octave mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mailman.cae.wisc.edu/listinfo/help-octave
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: "optim needs miscellaneous >= 1.0.10" problem

bpabbott
Administrator
In reply to this post by Sergei Steshenko
On Apr 3, 2012, at 4:42 AM, Sergei Steshenko wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso <[hidden email]>
>> To: Sergei Steshenko <[hidden email]>
>> Cc: Thomas Weber <[hidden email]>; "[hidden email]" <[hidden email]>
>> Sent: Monday, April 2, 2012 12:19 AM
>> Subject: Re: "optim needs miscellaneous >= 1.0.10" problem
>>
>> On 1 April 2012 17:02, Sergei Steshenko <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> I'm wondering hoe many years it will take to convince that Octave
>>> and packages should be released in conjunction with each other.
>>
>> We're not doing this to spite you. OF Packages are released separately
>> because it's too much work to do it together and OF package developers
>> sometimes see Octave as a foreign black box instead of something they
>> should work with.
>>
>> - Jordi G. H.
>
> You are doing this because of lack of understanding of importance of proper integration and QA.
>
> Had you been releasing Octave and packages together, you would have had much less bugs in Octave pkg.m and in packages themselves. I.e. building _all_ the packages with an Octave version is a very good test for both Octave and packages.
>
> I am saying _very_ tirvial things - look at a Linux distro for example - it is released with thousands of packages. And if a package from an official repository can't be installed, it is considered to be a bug.
>
> Regards,
>   Sergei.

I don't think it is doe to a lack of understanding. I think we'd all like to have Octave Forge's packages have releases that coincide with those of Octave.

That would eliminate problems with users of 3.2.4 trying to install a package that has 3.6.1 as a prerequisite, and I think we all recognize there is value in that.

The problem is a lack of volunteers to do the work. Beyond the need to place Octave Forge packages on version control and handling formal releases, a lot of administration, testing, and qualifying packages for new Octave releases would be required.

I'd like to see more activity in this area, but cringe at the thought of participating myself. Thus, I am grateful to those who actually have taken on responsibility and are actively doing the work.

Ben



_______________________________________________
Help-octave mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mailman.cae.wisc.edu/listinfo/help-octave