Bill Hart wrote: > Hi, > > I'm trying to open the flint spkg from the recent sage. As per the > instructions I typed: > > tar jxvf flint-1.3.0.p1.spkg > > on sage.math, but it complained: > > bzip2: (stdin) is not a bzip2 file. > tar: Child returned status 2 > tar: Error exit delayed from previous errors
That looks right to me, I'm not sure why it does not work for you. > I still don't understand why the libraries have to be in this spkg > format. Surely it makes more sense for an open source project to have > *all* code accessible easily, i.e. in source form, not packed into > tar.?? files. > > Does anyone else feel the same way about this issue? Is there a > technical reason for using a non-standard spkg format instead of > having the source trees accessible from within the sage source tree? > > Bill. I agree with you 100% Bill. I can see the .spkg format saves on the disk space requirements, as only a small fraction of the code is decompressed at any one time. But it has lots of problems I feel. Take my recent post: What keeps calling 'top' and 'grep' ? I can see from the processes being created that something is calling 'top -b -n' thousands of times. Had Sage been distributed as a big tar.bz2 file, I could extract that, and then use a recursive grep to find 'top -b -n'. But it is much more difficult to do things like this in the spkg format. I've also noticed some times, that despite running $ ./sage -sh I am unable to make changes to some packages in a sensible way, so I end up creating a new .spkg just to test some changes. I'd personally much rather see the Sage code was distributed as a more conventional .tar.gz or .tar.bz2. Dave --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send an email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URLs: http://www.sagemath.org -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
