On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 3:08 PM, Ondrej Certik <ond...@certik.cz> wrote: > > 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.
You can toss some "sage -i's" in the beginning of the spkg-install for qsnake. > 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? A while ago I added a feature so one can do sage -i http://url.to.an.spkg/anywhere/on/the/net and sage will download the spkg and install it. That might be good for you so that users do *not* have to use wget (which they might not have, e.g., it isn't on OS X). > 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 --- We definitely try very hard and it will only keep getting better. William --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
