On Apr 30, 5:27 pm, Kevin Horton <khorto...@rogers.com> wrote:
> On 30 Apr 2009, at 20:15, Mike Hansen wrote:
>
> >> Stupid question - why does sage use uncompressed tarballs, instead of
> >> something like .tgz. I think a corrupted .tgz couldn't be expanded,
> >> and they would download quicker too.
>
> > Almost everything in that tarball is already bz2 compressed (all of
> > the .spkg files) so that there is no benefit in trying to recompress
> > everything together.
>
> OK. Makes sense.
>
> Where does one find the MD5 of the tarball, so one can confirm the
> tarball is good before starting to compile sage?
They are not automatically generated, so I tend to post them only
rarely in the release notes.
Tar has a verify option, so you might want to use that when
compilation attempts fail.
> --
> Kevin Horton
Cheers,
Michael
> Ottawa, Canada
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
