On Nov 4, 2:22 pm, "ma...@mendelu.cz" <ma...@mendelu.cz> wrote:
> > We might also have an option for "fixed in our version", as many times
> > we will patch an spkg and simultaneously report it upstream. When we
> > eventually get the upstream fix in an update, we delete our patch.
>
> In other words, is this preferred way to fix broken Maxima commands?
>
> 1. Fix in maxima.spkg
> 2. Add test that the fixed spkg is used.
>
> I am asking because of work on
> trachttp://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/7325
> (fixed in CVS Maxima few days ago). I fixed Maxima part in python code
> in the patch submitted to this trac, which seems to be not accepted.
>
> And what abouthttp://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/6479where I
> fixed maxima commands ic2 and bc2 directly in Python code (lines
> 322-328 and 341--346). Should this ticket been reopened and ic2, bc2
> fixed as described above?
It seems reasonable that one might be able fix or work around
something in Python/Sage but not have the time/expertise to do so in
the upstream package, so probably it would depend on the situation -
better to fix a bug than not to fix it because you're required to fix
it in the spkg.
Upgrading spkgs all the time is also annoying, particularly since CVS
versions sometimes break other things. But if the bugfixer knew how
to fix it in a local skpg upgrade, presumably no one would be opposed
to that!
- kcrisman
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to
sage-devel-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel
URL: http://www.sagemath.org
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
