Re: Roll back octave package dependencies?

[dhmacdon2]

Thanks to everyone who weighed in on this. 

For now, I like Kai's advice because it involves doing nothing further to this Octave install! I'd much rather start using it to play around with some of the archived Matlab M-files I wrote during my MS degree work and a summer job a few years ago. 

In any case, it along with Ubuntu resides in a persistent live (and old) USB flash drive, therefore slow to boot and use. I expect to install it as a dual-boot on my laptop soon. 

Thanks again for your help!

Doug

---

From: "Andrew Janke" <address@hidden>
To: "Nicholas Jankowski" <address@hidden>
Cc: "Ian McCallion" <address@hidden>, "Kai Torben Ohlhus" <address@hidden>, address@hidden, address@hidden, "Doug MacDonald" <address@hidden>
Sent: Friday, April 24, 2020 3:16:35 PM
Subject: Re: Roll back octave package dependencies?

On 4/24/20 9:51 AM, Nicholas Jankowski wrote:

Something more akin to "frozen" Python applications might be more
appropriate for Octave. But that would be a big install, too: We're sort
of doing that for Octave.app (sans the hypothetical user's actual
application code), and once you pull in all Octave's dependencies, it's
a 2-3 GB install.

 what are the biggest pieces of that?  since you mentioned Python, I'm reminded that Octaves' symbolic package has a Python/Sympy bundled package that comes in at under 20MB. I don't know how much they had to throw away to make that bundle-able version, but I'm guessing something like that is what Iam may have had in mind?

I've attached a full list of the packages included in Octave.app. Here are the biggest ones:

[Cellar] $ du -s * | sort -rn
1198944    rust
792704    qt-octave-app
606248    openjdk@11
599192    gcc
284624    python
246816    openblas
171336    ghostscript
154808    cmake
143280    icu4c
126840    octave-octave-app@5.2.0
73504    librsvg
72616    x265
58064    suite-sparse
56944    imagemagick
48696    gettext
40536    openssl@1.1
33112    glib
31344    hdf5
30504    fftw

Several of these are part of the build toolchain. (Rust? What do we even use that for?) For a runtime-only Octave, as long as you were willing to give up the ability to build oct-files, I think you could strip out rust, gcc, cmake, saving you close to 1 GB. 600 MB more if you wanted to give up Java support.

Looks like rust is just a build-time-only dependency of librsvg. I should probably be stripping that out of Octave.app in the first place.

So maybe there's only about 350 MB of savings to be had by stripping out gcc and cmake, since rust shouldn't be included in the first place. Dunno if that's worth giving up the ability to build oct-files?

Cheers,
Andrew