Draft: chebfun package #615
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
| @@ -0,0 +1,36 @@ | ||
| --- | ||
| layout: "package" | ||
| permalink: "chebfun/" | ||
| description: >- | ||
| Preview of Chebfun, numerical computing with functions, packaged for GNU Octave. | ||
| icon: "https://www.chebfun.org/images/logo.png" | ||
| links: | ||
| - icon: "far fa-copyright" | ||
| label: "BSD-3-Clause" | ||
| url: "https://github.com/gnu-octave/chebfun/blob/octave-dev/LICENSE" | ||
| - icon: "fas fa-rss" | ||
| label: "news" | ||
| url: "https://github.com/gnu-octave/chebfun/blob/octave-dev/octave_pkg/NEWS" | ||
| - icon: "fas fa-code-branch" | ||
| label: "repository" | ||
| url: "https://github.com/gnu-octave/chebfun/" | ||
| - icon: "fas fa-book" | ||
| label: "package documentation" | ||
| url: "https://chebfun.org" | ||
| - icon: "fas fa-bug" | ||
| label: "report a problem" | ||
| url: "https://github.com/gnu-octave/chebfun/issues" | ||
| maintainers: | ||
| - name: "Colin B. Macdonald" | ||
| contact: | ||
| - name: "Thomas Kolman" | ||
| contact: | ||
| versions: | ||
| - id: "dev" | ||
| date: "2025-08-31" | ||
| sha256: "TODO" | ||
| url: "TDDO" | ||
| depends: | ||
| - "octave (>= 11.0.0)" | ||
| - "pkg" | ||
| --- | ||
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
There are package files that contain a section for development versions. E.g., the tablicious package:
packages/packages/tablicious.yaml
Lines 107 to 113 in 0a0430a
If I understand correctly, they set the .yaml file up to use the tarball that is dynamically generated by git (or GitHub?) for the head of a given branch. They left the
dateand thesha256fields empty. That is probably a good idea for a "rolling version" that can change at any time.I'd guess it would be ok to have that as the first section of
versions- at least for some time. That first section is used as the default source when a user installs the package withpkg install -forge chebfun.Once a first release is made, a new section describing that release could be added before the
id: "dev"section.Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks @mmuetzel
Our source code isn't a valid Octave package (no
inst/structure) so we can't quite use the github dynamically-generated tarball (we need to run a little script: https://github.com/gnu-octave/chebfun/blob/octave_dev/octave_pkg/make_oct_pkg.sh)The issue tracking all this is gnu-octave/chebfun#1
Good tip about leaving sha256 blank for rolling "dev".
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It seems CI is unhappy with the lack of sha256:
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Hmm. That might be an issue with the CI rules...
Maybe, we could demote that into a warning if the "expected" checksum is empty...
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I opened #616 (untested) that should demote the error to a warning in the CI check if the sha256 checksum is empty.