On 11 February 2024 19:50:17 GMT, Matthias Koeppe <matthiaskoe...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>I think it's a bit too quick to already call a vote. I would suggest that
>you take the time to collect and link previous discussions on this topic,
>so that participants can review the known arguments, viewpoints, and
>requirements.
>
>Example (from my previous
>post): https://groups.google.com/g/sage-devel/c/C7-ho1zvEYU/m/S2n8d5rOAgAJ
>(2016)
I don't think arguments from 2016 are very relevant today, given how much
python packaging evolved since then.
I don't think there is a good reason to delay this vote, especially given that
there is a pending vote on more
pip packages to be made standard, potentially leading to totally unneeded
effort to vendor them.
>
>It may also be relevant to consider whether the "Source code (tar.gz)"
>tarballs that are automatically provided by GitHub on releases (and tags)
>would be sufficient. (They do not contain upstream; but they also do not
>contain the helpful .git directory that our tarball release script
>painstakingly adds.)
>
>On Sunday, February 11, 2024 at 11:23:42 AM UTC-8 Dima Pasechnik wrote:
>
>> Currently the standard packages cannot be pip packages, i.e. we must, in
>> effect, vendor them. This entails an extra effort which is often not
>> needed, in particular as we patch only very few Python packages.
>> Pip packages are on the other hand installed straight from PyPI.
>>
>> Good examples of standard packages which can become pip ones are tox,
>> pytest (not yet standard).
>>
>>
>> The other difference is that by default these packages are not included in
>> the Sage releases source tarball.
>>
>> Rather than adding them there I propose to split the upstream/* part of
>> the tarball into something optional - which is represented by a list of
>> files to download, and which is just not needed if you build while
>> connected to the internet.
>>
>> This is a huge saving on the tarball size: with upstream/* in, Sage 10.2
>> tarball is 1.3Gb, and without it is smaller than 0.25Gb.
>>
>> Note that as William writes, the desire to have Sage buildable without an
>> internet connection was a requirement by a past Sage funder, gone about 10
>> years ago. Thus there's no longer an obligation to have this option.
>> I am not aware of a similar to Sage which provides tarballs allowing for
>> an offline build.
>>
>> Thus, I would like to call a vote on these two topics:
>>
>> 1) allow standard packages to be pip packages
>>
>> 2) drop the contents of upstream/ from the Sage source tarballs.
>>
>>
>> ---
>> Dima
>>
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/C4BE24E6-3CAF-4E7E-ABB7-90BD95395963%40gmail.com.
