(octave.portable) Adopt "octave" package to synchronize them

[ComFreek]

Expected Behavior

octave and octave.portable can be expected to be synchronized, i.e. reflect the same software incl. architecture bitness and most importantly the same version number.

Current Behavior

octave is heavily outdated with version 3.6.4 compared to octave.portable with version 4.4.1.
(Edit: ^ mistakenly confused octave and octave.portable)

Possible Solution

Adopt the octave package, probably by reusing most parts of octave.portable's install script.

Context

I wanted to install the octave package, which then in turn installed an outdated version of octave.portable.

[AdmiringWorm]

I think you've mixed the octave.portable and octave packages, it's the octave.portable that is at v 4.4.1, and the octave package at 3.6.4.

I don't get how you got the octave to install the octave.portable version though, as it doesn't have a dependency on that package.

It is also set up to be a package that uses the installer, and not the archives (like the portable edition uses).

So even if we would take over the maintenance of the octave package, this would continue to use the installer (along with a different package called octave.install which would contain the meat of the installation).

[ComFreek]

I think you've mixed the octave.portable and octave packages, it's the octave.portable that is at v 4.4.1, and the octave package at 3.6.4.

Indeed, that's now corrected in the OP.

I don't get how you got the octave to install the octave.portable version though, as it doesn't have a dependency on that package.

I've just checked that again by inspecting the nupkg... that's strange. I remember Chocolatey asking me whether I wished to uninstall octave.portable upon uninstallation of octave.

Maybe I can arrange a PR next weekend. Just to be sure, the new octave package should be empty and just take a dependency on the (then newly created) octave.install?
Edit: I've written a mail to the current maintainer. Let's see how that goes.

[AdmiringWorm]

Sure, feel free to do that.

However, I do believe we should try contacting the existing maintainer of the octave package as well (although I don't believe we'll hear anything back).

But we even for packages that are being migrated to this repo, the triage process needs to be done first as well.

[stale]

Is this still relevant? If so, what is blocking it? Is there anything you can do to help move it forward? If no progress is being made within 30 days, this issue will unfortunately be closed.

[ComFreek]

@Stale Yes, this is still relevant: The octave package is heavily outdated contrary to octave.portable being up-to-date. Previous comments still apply, someone needs to adapt that package.

[AdmiringWorm]

It is unfortunately not relevant, as the octave package is not part of this repository (I understand the want to have it updated together with the portable edition), please follow the triage process. After that process is done, then we can get this added to the repository.

[ComFreek]

For reference: I've just seen somebody has taken on the task: chocolatey-community/chocolatey-package-requests#487 🎆