I could agree with using .spkg even if it was only for readability, but a nice idea is: why can't we just use .egg ? It's pythonic and already a standard in python world. Also, there are tools available to deal with them (tools already included in sage). They can pack C stuff if needed and fancy things can be done with setup.py.
I'm not intimate with it, but it's a suggestion worth looking... maybe using package.sage.egg would be easily parseable and easy to read. Well, probably that wouldn't solve the problem completely, as the completion would still not work, I believe, though could be easier to push for a change in completion code. Ronan Paixão Em Ter, 2008-10-28 às 07:44 -0700, Tim Abbott escreveu: > On Oct 28, 7:32 am, mabshoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > -1 on the rename, too. It will cause massive problems without any > > serious benefit whatsoever. The manual clearly describes what an spkg > > is and provides tools to create them and so on. If one wants to play > > with the innards of Sage and one is stopped by the fact that one does > > not know what an spkg is (and also does not know about "file") one > > I'm more concerned about confusing software than confusing people -- > for whatever reason, very few tools that are supposed to magically > open things work by using "file" to identify the file type. They all > just look at the extension. > > > also does not know about the structure inside an spkg which is much > > more critical. > > > > To add to William's list: rpms for example are also archives with a > > certain structure and I don't see the rpm folks rename their extension > > because it could be less confusing :) > > Well, I think they're using those extensions in part because they want > to treat the archives as opaque objects that are only to be > manipulated using a certain abstraction (e.g. you're supposed to use > dpkg -x or dpkg -e to extract the data and control tar archives that > are combined together with ar to form a .deb file) . For Sage, it's > primarily about passing around tarballs containing the Sage versions > of upstream sources, and you really are supposed to manipulate them as > a .tar.bz2 archive. The .deb or .rpm extensions exist to create a new > _type_ for that platform's packages, while Sage .spkg files seem more > like a subclass of the .tar.bz2 type with a format that doesn't seem > very different from the fact that a .tar.gz archive containing the > source of a GNU project is supposed to contain script called configure > that you can run after extracting it to obtain a Makefile, and files > with names like AUTHORS and ChangeLog that have similar information to > a SPKG.txt file. > > If people are really convinced that the .spkg name is what they want, > then we can try to solve the problem by getting the bash, midnight > commander, etc. upstreams to treat .spkg files as though they > were .tar.bz2 archives. I do worry that some upstreams may just > refuse to merge support for the .spkg extension, however. > > -Tim Abbott > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
