[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Windows binaries
From: |
Andy Adler |
Subject: |
Re: Windows binaries |
Date: |
Thu, 8 May 2003 23:21:29 -0400 (EDT) |
On Thu, 8 May 2003, John W. Eaton wrote:
> What is the current state of Octave binary distributions for Octave?
I believe that the most current version of octave/windows is
on octave.sf.net. It is 2.1.42 compiled/prepared by me.
Basically there are two distributions:
1. Windows *.exe installer. Includes everything necessary
to make octave work. (cygwin/gnuplot/epstk/ATLAS).
Will not break cygwin mount paths.
(ATLAS and non-Atlas version provided)
2. Cygwin install. Includes octave/octave-forge/gnuplot
(ATLAS and non-Atlas version provided)
The windows *.exe is the most popular download
This version is compiled statically only. This version
is also available on my web site. I have only had one
bug report in the last 2 months. (I fixed all the previous
reported bugs)
Paul Kienzle and I have discussed the right way to
package the next version. It should be dynamically linked,
but use a shared version of libstdc++. The trick is that
the *.a files cannot be stripped for people who want to
compile *oct files. Thus it makes sense to have an
octave and octave-devel package.
I plan to get around to working on this within the next
month.
> I would like to see all of these efforts merged in some way so that we
> can point to one place and have a simple set of instructions (i.e.,
> get this file, run it, click next, next, next, finish, possibly
> selecting some options along the way, and then you are done).
We more of less have this now.
> Should the Octave binary distribution include everything needed, or
> should there be a set of packages (octave, gnuplot, etc.)?
I think we should have cygwin specific versions (devel and use)
that are separate, but the windows *.exe should have everything.
Windows support is really important to getting broad octave acceptance.
I think that we're currently most of the way there.
Andy