On Oct 28, 4:23 am, "Georg S. Weber" <georgswe...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > (1) Have a Python library called "sagecore", which is just the most > > important standard spkg's (e.g., Singular, PARI, etc.), perhaps > > eventually built *only* as shared object libraries (no standalone [...] > > I just can't believe David Cournapeau would go this way, if "python > setup.py install" could do "anything", or if Python resp. its ecosysem > (PyPI, ...) already had reasonably good support for the needs of the > NumPy project. >
the point that David Cournapeau makes is about distutils/setuputils getting too messy, too procedural, as opposed to declarative. His point about the need of a better packaging system is not about the lack of power in the present system, it's about lack of structure and abundance of general mess... (Python borrows from Haskell now and then, so if it would borrow from Haskell's package system, this won't be bad :-)) Dima > However, the idea of having "layers", explicitly a "sagecore" Python > library, on top of which sits the "sagestandard" Python library, on > top of which (or at its side) may sit some research "psage" Python > library, is IMHO a valuable one, worth of pursuing further. > Essentially, it's a matter of slicing the current rather monolithic > Sage distribution into reasonable peaces (whatever "reasonable" might > mean in this context ...). > > Cheers, > Georg -- 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
