On Sat, Dec 15, 2018 at 5:09 AM Dima Pasechnik wrote:
> The present design with two optional packages gap_packages and
> database_gap was dictated in the 1st place by copyright issues with
> their contents, preventing them from being standard.
>
> Since GAP release 4.9, all these issues have
That sounds great!
David
On Sat, Dec 15, 2018 at 7:28 AM John Cremona wrote:
> +1
>
> On 15 Dec 2018 10:09, "Dima Pasechnik" wrote:
>
>> The present design with two optional packages gap_packages and
>> database_gap was dictated in the 1st place by copyright issues with
>> their contents,
+1
On 15 Dec 2018 10:09, "Dima Pasechnik" wrote:
> The present design with two optional packages gap_packages and
> database_gap was dictated in the 1st place by copyright issues with
> their contents, preventing them from being standard.
>
> Since GAP release 4.9, all these issues have been
The present design with two optional packages gap_packages and
database_gap was dictated in the 1st place by copyright issues with
their contents, preventing them from being standard.
Since GAP release 4.9, all these issues have been resolved upstream,
and I propose these spkgs to be merged into
