http://www.econ.kyoto-u.ac.jp/daikokai/ ... 20Mark.pdf
This is a key point:
Broadly speaking, we can see that jyotiṣa materials are often incorporated into Buddhist texts somewhat apologetically in the early phase. In the Mahāyāna case, jyotiṣa knowledge is often considered a form of expedient (upāya), employed for the benefits for the sentient beings though they are not considered genuine Buddhist teachings per se. In the late stage, in particular among the so-called Tantric works, they are seen as authentic Buddhist teachings and are often employed directly with no justification given or required.
So, it begs the question, if astrology was incorporated into Buddhism over time, to the point that it essentially became naturalized knowledge that needed no further justification for its existence in the literature, does it still matter to you?
One thing that can't be denied is that historically it has often played a very important role in Mahāyāna Buddhism from India to Tibet to China to Japan (maybe Theravada, too, but I honestly don't know). Astrological texts provided auspicious dates for events as well as horoscopes and other such occult knowledge. They still do, especially in Tibetan Buddhism, but elsewhere as well, but perhaps less so. A lot of very eminent and wise thinkers in the past took astrology very seriously.
Nevertheless, it doesn't seem to get much discussion in the English speaking Buddhist world. Is it not so important?