On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 6:05 PM, Robert Bradshaw <rober...@math.washington.edu> wrote: > On Jan 21, 2010, at 6:31 AM, Gonzalo Tornaria wrote: > >> On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 5:47 PM, Peter Jeremy <peterjer...@acm.org> wrote: >>> >>> My personal feeling is that it would be nice if some of the more generic >>> packages (eg bzip, zlib, readline, mercurial) were moved out of sage >>> and made explicit requirements. >> >> +1 >> >> I think Sage is mature enough now to slowly migrate toward this. >> Besides, there can still be spkgs for those packages, and there could >> be a sage-with-batteries-included tarball with dependencies included. > > What would be the advantage? The easier it is for users to go from a > standard distro/OS X box to a running Sage the better. Also, there's the > much more important Windows port to consider.
In the long run, I think it's way easier if sage actually *comes* with the standard distro / fink / etc. If it could be done with gfortran, it can be done with other dependencies. We didn't see mountains crumbling because of that (I was annoyed as others, but only because the prereq didn't warn me, and because the change was made in the last 24 hours before release). > One of the reasons we ship our own of so much stuff is that we require > specific versions (e.g. you can't just drop in a new version of pari, > maxima, or gap, and have it Just Work). Is that an issue for any of the > above packages? Also, we require the dev versions of the above packages, not > just binaries (which is what many systems come with). Agreed. The OP didn't suggest to drop those out of sage. I didn't either (not at this stage, anyway). But "some of the more generic packages" could "**slowly** migrate toward this". I don't think there are very specific version needs for bzip, zlib, readline, mercurial, etc. (possibly a newer-than version check, and readline may be icky, etc). If sage could "just work" with my own distro dev libraries for some of those, that would be a huge step forward, IMO. Once it's doable with a few, the rest will follow at its own pace. Plus, there can *still* be spkgs for all the dependencies. And there could be a "sage-with-batteries-included" tarball which works just as it does now. And another "sage-reduced-for-expert-developers-and-distros" tarball which doesn't include the spkgs which can be replaced by distro packages. Even the prereq script could actually *check* the dependencies, and (offer to) download the required spkg !!! (then the tarballs could be named "sage-full-install" vs. "sage-net-install".) IMO sage is mature enough now. Best, Gonzalo -- 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
