\On Oct 27, 2008, at 9:41 PM, Tim Abbott wrote: > On Oct 28, 12:31 am, "Mike Hansen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Hi Tim, >> >> I assume that we would/should add some other marker to the >> filename to >> identify it as the Sage version of that package rather than the >> vanilla upstream source. > > Yeah, that's an issue I probably should have mentioned in my original > email. One solution to that would be to always include the appended > p0 (or whatever) in the version number for Sage versions of packages. > Another would be to use the extension .spkg.tar.bz2.
It should be noted that that they are not *just* bzipped tar files, there is also the requirement that they contain an spkg-install script (and, ideally, spkg.txt, a mercurial repo, etc.) But there is often confusion that they can be opened with standard tar tools (though the same could be said of open office files being .zip with a non-obvious extension). - Robert --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URLs: http://www.sagemath.org -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
