On Nov 2, 4:48 pm, Ronan Paixão <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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.
Nope, this cannot work since Python is not a requirement to build Sage
and by the time Python has been build we have already numerous
dependencies up and running. An spkg is an exercise in KISS and I
doubt anything will replace it. This discussion has happened on and
off list multiple times :)
> 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
Cheers,
Michael
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
