On Apr 17, 3:13 am, Ondrej Certik <ond...@certik.cz> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 2:33 AM, mabshoff <mabsh...@googlemail.com> wrote:
<SNIP>
> > Well, it would happen from my end. I think that in the process we
> > would do some serious cleanup, but the switch over should be quick
> > *if* we do it IMHO.
>
> Yes -- but wait until I have all my patches ready (couple weeks). Then
> it will be clear what has to be changed and how. For example I am also
> changing the occurrences of the word Sage in the notebook, and so on.
> Besides, when you change SAGE_ROOT to SPD_ROOT, then you have to also
> change all the spkg packages. Which I would like to avoid, so that
> it's as compatible with Sage as possible.
Well, it isn't particularly hard to do so and I am sure in the process
I would clean up a lot of code. And to drive the point home: For now
this is a proposal and I think this should be voted upon before we do
anything. Then again: Writing a little script that unpacks an spkg,
changes SAGE_$FOO to SPD_$FOO isn't exactly magic :)
<SNIP>
> > Yep, another thing I want to do is to autogenerate the dependency file
> > from some list of components, i.e. it would know that scipy requires
> > some sort of BLAS as well as a Fortran compiler and so on. We would
> > also have required versions, etc, but since it has to be cross
> > platform we cannot use anything existing. But that might be a while
> > off, but seems to be crucial for someone non-technical to just
> > assemble a custom SPD for his/her particular purpose.
>
> Excellent, when we last discussed that I thought you were opposed to
> any dependencies.
I am not sure what you refer to, but we either aren't taking about the
same thing or there is some misunderstanding.
What I would like to see is the possibility to say assemble Sage from
some large repo of spkgs and automagically all the dependencies would
be put together in a tarball since each spkg would have a file
describing its dependencies. This would also make it easier to do
custom Sage distributions with additional bits, i.e. FE software,
optimization and on and on since IMHO the size of Sage is unlikely to
grow much beyond what we currently have. I actually want to shrink
what is current in Sage sizewise and have a more manageable core, but
I am sure this is controversial enough not to disclose any detailed
plans I have ;)
At the same time you want an SPD distribution with numerical bits,
Fortran, the notebook and your own custom code, but not the Sage
library and a whole bunch of "abstract mathematical stuff", so if all
this could be done from the same set of spkgs (probably coming from
multiple repos, i.e. some from Sage core, some from your end, etc) I
think this would be something worth doing. And if it ran on Linux,
OSX, Solaris and Windows I am sure we will have a winner.
<SNIP>
> Sure. I myself think that Enthought is doing great and that they are
> giving back as much as their business model permits.
We offered to work together with them on the native Windows port of
Sage where our interests overlapped, especially the 64 bit bits and
they weren't interested. Oh well .....
<SNIP>
> Right, didn't occur to me. This brings a question what is the purpose
> of GPL if it cannot even be enforced in Python, e.g. if I can still
> use it and distribute it with proprietary stuff.
It depends: According to the FSF's official interpretation of the GPL
dlopen() constitutes "combined work", so having Python using GPLed
extensions "poisons" the python binary, so you cannot distribute non-
GPL compatible extensions with it in binary form once you are using
GPLed components.
> > What specifically are you talking about? I am not aware of any
> > notebook interface and the build bits from Sage do not exist in
> > IPython AFAIK.
>
> If you remember the Sage Days 8 at Enthought a year ago, we were
> playing with a notebook in ipython together with Fernando, Brian and
> others. But I think noone had time to develop it further.
Ok, I do not remember any details on that, but I do remember they
IPython demo.
> The build bits do not exist in ipython, but I think ipython should
> have some good web notebook.
Sure, competition is good for business. I just don't think this code
is currently a priority for them and judging from the current
discussion about getting 0.10 out the door I don't see anyone
interested *and* having the time to work on this.
<SNIP>
> > Yeah, I am hoping that all the energy for net based notebook like
> > interfaces will unite behind the sagelite project. I.e. I don't think
> > Knoboo will become mature any time soon, i.e. there seems to be at
> > best glacial development on the repo for the last couple months again,
> > etc.
>
> Yes, I think so too, I want to just use the Sage notebook, for
> teaching and presentations and other stuff. If someone writes
> something better, then why not, but currently the Sage notebook is by
> far the best thing around.
+1
> 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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
