Hi, I still vote -1 to this, and think it is possible to get around using patch at runtime. Nonetheless, I am ok with this proposal going forward, because it clearly received a lot of support from most developers who commented.
William On Friday, July 2, 2010, Mike Hansen <mhan...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 11:52 AM, William Stein <wst...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Why? Consider that we *already* successfully conditionally patch >> files without using patch at all... and this works for every spkg >> included in Sage. > > Right, but it's all managed by hand. Once you start making automating > things, then they have to be standardized. For example, should every > patch get its own directory for the files that it touches? If A.patch > and B.patch both change setup.py, then you'll need to put those > patched setup.py files somewhere. What if you need the changes from > both A.patch and B.patch applied, would such a system automatically > make another version of setup.py with both those patches applied? > > It seems like a way more complicated solution than what's needed. > > We can also just have the patch.spkg "exit 0" if the patch is already > installed. > > --Mike > > -- > 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
