n...@n0.is writes: > names for packages are (mostly) random, although in some > cases following classiifcations (see python-*, r-*, ...). > I am thinking that should we rename qtoctave to octave and octave to octave-cli (or octave-minimal)?
Firstly, a new user wanting to install octave will probably do the obvious "guix package -i octave", but currently this command will do the counter-intuitive thing of installing the non-gui version of octave. Instead, they will have to install qtoctave to get the gui. I am in favour of making a package to support as many features as possible, while also making a minimal version for building other packages (or users who desn't want a gui). An example would be emacs vs emacs-minimal. Secondly, I suggest to name the minimal version as "octave-cli" because this is what the octave binary (the command-line only version) is called. Also, running "guix package -A '-cli$'" shows some of the existing packages also follow similar naming convention (I don't know it they have a corresponding gui version though). What do others think? Cheers, Alex > The Qt part of Octave is a separate package because making > it just an output would still pull in Qt and the size difference > is huge. > > Alex Vong transcribed 856 bytes: >> Hello, >> >> Brett Gilio <bre...@posteo.net> writes: >> >> > Hey all, >> > >> > Happy guix birthday! >> > >> > Quick question, why is the octave package split up into two different >> > public definitions, rather than just having the QtOctave-GUI being a >> > "gui" output, like it is for transmissionBT and some others? >> > >> I would also want to know why it is called qtoctave. My understanding is >> that qtoctave was a GUI frontend to the official octave which is now >> replaced by the official octave GUI. >> >> > Best, >> > Brett Gilio >> >> Cheers, >> Alex
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
