On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 11:36 AM, David Joyner <wdjoy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The solution is simple. Have two versions of a package,
> say
>
> my-gpl-package.spkg
> my-gpl-package-with-all-nongpl-dependencies-autoloaded.spkg.
>
> The last differs from the first only in the license and a few lines of
> the installer script.
That's really simple for you. From *my* point of view as
the-guy-who-has-to-post-all the spkg's, and make-sure-they-work, and
complain when they don't, the above just doubles my workload.
Regarding: "I was told that a GPL package must not install a non-GPL package."
The above can never legally come up, right? If a program Foo is "GPL"
and fundamentally depends on a program Bar that is licensed
GPL-incompatible, then distributing Foo at all violates the GPL right?
So if the above situation ever came up, I would not host said spkg
on sagemath.org, since I would be a copyright violator.
Regarding: "so I attempt to install them with "sage -i" in the
spkg-install script. The bad thing is I hard-code the package
numbers, so that will break if they are updated."
Don't do that. Instead do this:
sage -c "install_package('package_name')"
without the version number. The "install_package" command in the Sage
library automatically determined the most recent version of a package.
The reason "sage -i" doesn't do this is mainly historical and so that
"sage -i" doesn't depend on loading the Sage library.
Regarding: "it makes me want to bang my head on my desk"
Don't do that. We need you to be healthy so you can continue to
contribute to Sage!
-- William
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 2:25 PM, mhampton <hampto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hmmm. That makes sense, even though it also makes me want to bang my
>> head on my desk.
>>
>> That means it should be OK if all the packages involved are GPL.
>> There must be some variants that would also be compatible - ?
>>
>> -Marshall
>>
>> On Nov 13, 1:16 pm, Simon King <simon.k...@nuigalway.ie> wrote:
>>> Hi Marshall!
>>>
>>> On 13 Nov., 19:53, mhampton <hampto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> > I don't see why optional packages should not try to install their
>>> > dependencies.
>>>
>>> The reason is the licence. Gap_packages (or at least the SmallGroups
>>> library) is not GPL. I was told that a GPL package must not install a
>>> non-GPL package. For the same reason, gap_packages can not be a
>>> standard spkg -- it must be the user's own decision to install the non-
>>> GPL package.
>>>
>>> Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think this is what Michael
>>> Abshoff, William Stein and David Joyner told me.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Simon
>> >
>>
>
> >
>
--
William Stein
Associate Professor of Mathematics
University of Washington
http://wstein.org
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
