On Feb 23, 3:08 pm, Ondrej Certik <ond...@certik.cz> wrote:
> Hi,
Hi,
> I was trying to find if it was discussed before, but didn't find
> anything -- what is your view on spkg dependencies?
>
> It is not that bad so far, but still I need to remember in which order
> to install all my aditional software, e.g. cmake first, then the
> fortran package, then my wrappers, it'd be convenient if the user
> could just do "sage -i qsnake" and it would do the right thing.
>
> I also spent couple hours investigating some package managers that
> handle dependencies and don't require root access. I quite liked:
<SNIP>
> Yes, I know there is some old python. So that's a show stopper.
The Sage community had this discussion before and the answer to any
proposed change is "NO". We want
* KISS
* something that only requires a shell to work
* something that runs on OSX, Linux, Solaris, Cygwin and in the
future native Winows
I have just described the empty set for if you take Sage's build
system out of the equation.
> Ideally, I would like to bootstrap like Sage, from nothing. E.g. the
> user would download a small tarball, that would contain basically just
> a python based package manager + python itself (if it's not installed
> on the system). And then he could install and remove any packages he
> wants, they would download & install into ~/.cache or something. So it
> would work like a source distribution, that runs everywhere. The
> advantage is that libraries like numpy, lapack, blas, etc. would get
> installed only once and all the upgrades would just download a small
> thing. The Sage current approach is to download and compile everything all
> over again.
This is wrong, you can upgrade from release to release. And you can
drop spkgs on any webserver and set some env variable and Sage will
pull from it and get spkg updates.
> But I don't want to start anything new, so I am just curious about
> Sage plans in the future about this. Basically, what I need from Sage
> is atlas, lapack, numpy, scipy, python and then the possibility to
> install all my additional packages.
You want to make this stand alone? Take a look at local/bin.
> Another thing --- I'd like to create some repository with my packages,
> so that people can just "sage -i" install them, without having to
> first wget all the spkg and install them manually. So I thought I
> would get my packages to sage experimental, but is there any procedure
> for that?
Yes, submit them for inclusion. But you should add dependency checks
inside the spkg so things do not blow up.
> I know that all of this is reinventing the wheel and basically doing
> what linux distributions are doing, but Sage imho is a distribution --
> a source distribution that runs everywhere and actually compiles ---
> well, it's true that each time I tried to compile sage on some cluster
> (2x so far), it failed :), but I think I am an exception, since I used
> some older g++, or some other stuff was broken.
Well, in once case you used a truly screwed up distribution and the
bugs got fixed with your help. What do you expect from 5,000,000 lines
of code? It works much more reliable than any other project I have
ever build from sources in that size range.
> Ondrej
Cheers,
Michael
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
sage-devel-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel
URLs: http://www.sagemath.org
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
