On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 3:37 PM, David Kirkby <david.kir...@onetel.net> wrote: > On 2 March 2010 14:50, William Stein <wst...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 6:43 AM, Minh Nguyen <nguyenmi...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> What you wrote is already amazingly crystal clear and of course >> matches exactly with what I do anyways (which is probably what you >> were recording there). I just didn't know about it, and clearly David >> didn't either. >> >> Minh -- thanks!! >> >> -- William > > Agreed. > > The only point I thought might be a little troublesome is the use of > the 'patch' command. There is says the preferred method is to use 'cp' > rather than 'patch', but does not totally rule out use of 'patch'. > (There is even an example of its use).I think you said recently > 'patch' must never be used. The page also says the Solaris patch > program can't handle unified diffs, which is not true, but it is > certainly true that one can generate diff's on Linux systems which the > Sun 'patch' command can't handle. > > I've never myself met a Unix system which does not have the 'patch' > command. It is part of the POSIX standard. If it's agreed that 'patch' > must never be used, then perhaps that needs stating a bit more clearly > on that page.
It's come up many times, and I personally am against the explicit use of 'patch' in spkg-install. It *was* used recently by somebody for gfan, which made upgrading *break* for an entire Sage release (which was really bad, imho). I just think using patch explicitly tends to be error prone, and is definitely not necessary. -- William -- 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
