We (not just Sage, but you and I!) have been discussing this for almost 15 years.
Haha, true! SageMath has several other long-term contributors who also package software. We're all roughly on the same page about what it would take to fix the sage installation for end users. And some of these people (perhaps kiwifb?) have not been as directly involved in some of the recent disputes. Maybe there is a path forward (I also presume the CoCC is thinking about this). But so far, every attempt to disentangle the library/distribution to enable this division of labor has been met with resistance by essentially one person. Well, more accurately there must be a critical mass of people who, like Kwankyu in some recent comments (apologies for not having link to hand), want to trust that the related process undertaken by that person is worth doing, and to let that proceed. Otherwise they would have spoken up, as many longer-term developers are not shy of doing so on other matters. Regarding WSL in Dima's post, I thought https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/37184 (and the followups) addressed this quite a bit - that was what I was referring to. If I could get it to work, I think anyone could. But I didn't try Jupyterlab, maybe that's not included in it. Anyway, I was definitely not referring to anyone who knows what "apt-get" is in WSL. So am I right in your saying that Jupyter wouldn't work "out of the box" with Sage with the conda-based solution for WSL? To me, that's an argument *for* batteries, not against. Same applies for the MacOS version provided by 3manifolds, my assumption was that this would work "out of the box" if you do sage -n jupyter or something. That assumption could be wrong - but again, why put additional barriers to the user? "Normal" software that "normal" i.e. non-developer people use in the real world doesn't do that. Why make that a prerequisite for just doing math? I hate to beat the dead horse of the now-debatable mission statement, but does Mathematica make you separately download and install a notebook? Even LaTeX has this problem - you have to install the distribution separately from TeXShop or what have you - and just like the developer friction noted here, it's a little bit of extra friction. > What fragmentation are you talking about? I meant that it's a bit silly (from the Mac or Windows perspective) that one even needs Arch, Ubuntu, Debian, Gentoo, Fedora, or anything else on the massive (and probably incorrect) list on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Linux_distributions That's a massive duplication of effort right there. > It has to be formulated and agreed upon in general lines, otherwise such a summit would be a waste of time. Agreed. All of my points are irrelevant compared to getting us back on some consensus track. That means toning down the rhetoric and candidly saying what sub-optimal concessions might be on the table (to be clear, for everyone). It's clear now that at least two visions for Sage packaging/modularization which, in their current technical state, are viewed by stakeholders as colliding in their purest forms, but it seems unlikely that Sage is not Turing-complete enough to support a modus vivendi. -- 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/7ebdcd4a-b8fa-4e1a-8f65-687730fa309bn%40googlegroups.com.
