> Though these would be good to fix, I'm wary of all of the above for a > "stabilization release."
Oh, I overlooked the most important part: "Stabilization" release - the tickets wouldnt serve that purpose, of course. Nevertheless, these would be the ones which I would like to see fixed :) . > Sounds like a good idea. Does the spit sage build pass all of its > tests? The one request I have is that it not go stale like the Debian > one (but it sounds like you're trying to make it maintainable). On x86 there are exactly 25 tests (summary after "make test") which fail. Most of them are caused because newer versions of programs are installed than Sage itself ships with. But most of them are minor issues. If you are curious, I can send you the test log. On amd64 it looks worse, there are a lot of memory errors which will require some more time. The Ebuilds itself (which are in fact bash scripts) are very easily maintainable, an upgrade of Sage requires 15 minutes to 4 hours depending how much you changed. > Personally, I think it would be interesting to experiment with a combo > of "sage-on-gentoo" and "Gentoo/Prefix", but I do not see anyone (me > included) having any time to devote to something like that. Of course, > it would only be a second step, after "sage-on-gentoo" being stable, > and well-maintained for a longer period of time. But the potential > benefit would be a new possibility to deploy Sage as such (we already > do something similar with "Sage in a VirtualBox image", which actually > contains not only Sage, but a bare-bones GNU/Linux installation). Thanks a lot for the hint, I never heard of Gentoo/Prefix! I just had a quick look at it and it sounds very promising. I will have a closer look at it and find out if its possible to do. -- 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
