On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 2:07 PM, Nils Bruin <nbr...@sfu.ca> wrote: > I am not completely sure that I understand how William's proposal > affects the procedure for making spkgs. What I have done the last > couple of times that I made an spkg update is: > 1. sage -sh > 2. tar xjf package.p0.spkg > 3. replace src with the new version > 4. (re)place files in package.p0/patches > 5. edit spkg-install > 6. cp -r package.p0 package.buildtry > 7. run package.buildtry/spkg-install > 8. test that this spkg worked out OK > 9. tar cjf package.p1.spkg package/ > I guess this procedure needs adjustment from step 6 onwards in > William's proposal.
NO. In fact, what I'm proposing wouldn't make any sense to you, since you seem to not know some basic things about how to make spkg's. The right way to make and test an spkg is to do: sage -pkg package.p0 sage -f -m package.p0.spkg You should never have to explicitly run spkg-install, or use the tar command. In particular, 9 above is very wrong: you should do "sage -pkg package.p0" to make the package. This will run consistency checks on package.p0. -- William > Is "sage -spkg" going to meddle with spkg-install? There is no "sage -spkg". The command "sage -pkg" won't meddle with spkg-install. My entire proposal is: Modify "sage -pkg" so that it generates the patched files from the patches. That's it. > Can we still > recover a "source" directory from the sage -spkg produced package on > which we can run sage -spkg again to obtain the same package? Yes. > In more mathematical terms, "tar cjf" and "tar xjf" are functionally > two-sided inverses of each other, which makes it very transparent how > one can manipulate spkgs. Does "sage -spkg" have a similar "almost > inverse"? It seems to me that William's suggestion would mean that > "tar xjf" definitely wouldn't do anymore. > NO. "tar xjf" will continue to work exactly as before. > Incidentally, it seems to me that after running spkg-install, one > cannot make a correct spkg from that directory anymore, because src/ > is now patched. That does slow down the development cycle for spkgs a > bit. Do people have smart workarounds for that? You should never, ever, ever run ./spkg-install directly. See above. And in case people missed it, my entire proposal is: Modify "sage -pkg" so that it generates the patched files from the patches. There are details to how that is done, which I haven't specified. -- 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 > -- William Stein 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
