Octave modules

[KarlJoad]

Motivation for this change

This PR would fulfill the request in Issue #65398.

Much of the code mirrors that of lua and python, and not insignificant portions were built out of that.

This is a very messy branch, I know. I attempted a naive approach the first time, which really did not work in my favor.

Things done

• Tested using sandboxing (nix.useSandbox on NixOS, or option sandbox in nix.conf on non-NixOS linux)
• Built on platform(s)
  • NixOS
  • macOS
  • other Linux distributions
• Tested via one or more NixOS test(s) if existing and applicable for the change (look inside nixos/tests)
• Tested compilation of all pkgs that depend on this change using nix-shell -p nixpkgs-review --run "nixpkgs-review wip"
• Tested execution of all binary files (usually in ./result/bin/)
• Determined the impact on package closure size (by running nix path-info -S before and after)
• Ensured that relevant documentation is up to date
• Fits CONTRIBUTING.md.

No tests were present in nixos/tests for Octave, so there is nothing to do on that front.

[SuperSandro2000]

@KarlJoad please fix the merge conflict.

[KarlJoad]

@KarlJoad please fix the merge conflict.

Fixed! 😄

I forgot to rebase before opening the request, so I just had to do a massive rebase and sort a few things out.

[SuperSandro2000]

This is a semi-automatic executed nixpkgs-review which does not build all packages (e.g. lumo, tensorflow or pytorch)
If you find some bugs or got suggestions for further things to search or run please reach out to SuperSandro2000 on IRC.

Result of nixpkgs-review pr 108562 run on x86_64-linux 1

2 packages marked as broken and skipped:

• octavePackages.level-set
• octavePackages.ltfat

5 packages built:

• octavePackages.control
• octavePackages.io
• octavePackages.linear-algebra
• octavePackages.signal
• octavePackages.symbolic

[doronbehar]

Thanks once more @KarlJoad for all the work. I took the liberty to shorten the commit messages even further to include only necessary information. I tested symbolic which I intend to use in my default octave interpreter and I also tested strings (as a random example) and it proved to be functional enough. Will merge once CI is green! 🎉 .

The next step is to document how Octave packages are handled in Nixpkgs... 📖.

[Misterio77]

Hey, @doronbehar. Sorry for the ping, and i know this isn't exactly the right place to ask, but i've looked around and couldn't get symbolic working using nix at all.

Should nix-shell -p octave octavePackages.symbolic be enough to get octave to load symbolic, or am i missing something?

I'd love to help document this if at all possible, too.

[Misterio77]

Got it working using octave.withPackages, just in case someone stumbles upon this

{ pkgs ? import <nixpkgs> {} }:
pkgs.mkShell {
  nativeBuildInputs = with pkgs; [
    (octave.withPackages (ps: with ps; [symbolic]))
  ];
}

[KarlJoad]

@Misterio77, while technically possible open a shell with the octave package completely standalone, there is some trickery with text-based database files when using withPackages that is required to make packages usable with the actual octave package. If you specify just the package, then the package will be downloaded, compiled, and saved as an output tarball for later installation. If you want to actually use the package, then you must specify octave.withPackages, much like you must with Python.

[Misterio77]

That makes a lot more sense! Thanks for helping a newbie understand it haha :))