What does this (a discussion of how Sage specifies version restrictions) have to do with the proposal? If it's relevant, that was not clear in the original proposal, so please clarify. It sounds like you might be proposing removing version checks on many of the packages Sage uses, or at least that's a conclusion I might draw from your critique of the amount of maintenance for Sage packages. Or maybe you are proposing redesigning the version specification system? In any case, it wasn't stated as part of the original proposal, so I don't know what was intended. If it is not relevant to the proposal, let's drop this part of the discussion.
I would also suggest dropping the question of whether we're "vendoring." The proposal clearly says that we should stop distributing the tarballs in the upstream directory, so whatever we call it, that part is clear. (Maybe by "vendoring" you meant the combination of including the tarballs and the maintenance on the allowed versions, or maybe just including the tarballs, or maybe something else. The word "vendoring" does not seem to be helpful, so instead spelling out exactly what's meant for Sage could be helpful, at least if you meant more than just removing "upstream".) On Monday, February 12, 2024 at 3:07:38 PM UTC-8 Dima Pasechnik wrote: > On Mon, Feb 12, 2024 at 10:01 PM Matthias Koeppe > <matthia...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Monday, February 12, 2024 at 10:49:04 AM UTC-8 Dima Pasechnik wrote: > > > > requirements.txt might as well specify the range, and this is used too > e.g. > > > > build/pkgs/phitigra/requirements.txt has > > phitigra>=0.2.6 > > > > > > Yes, as I said in > https://groups.google.com/g/sage-devel/c/5kmxaw105lg/m/9rF77fvFAAAJ, > ""Pip" packages can either be pinned to a specific version, or set > acceptable version ranges, or be entirely unconstrained. This is set in the > file requirements.txt in the package directory." > > > > So this is all [...] confusing > > > > > > That's why I'm taking the time to explain it clearly for the benefit of > everyone. > > I am sorry: I claimed that Sage has about 5 different ways to > specify/restrict versions of its packages, > and this makes it hugely confusing. > You disagreed, but now you say that it needs an explanation. > > What really needs an explanation is how we ever went this far on a > garden path. :-) > -- 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/b89c5e20-0fb0-4c92-8333-4f1766a2bfa1n%40googlegroups.com.
