On Dec 2, 1:46 pm, Jason Grout <jason-s...@creativetrax.com> wrote: > On 12/2/10 12:42 PM, kcrisman wrote: > > > That said, maybe 'easy_install' is really as easy as ./sage -i nose > > from the internet, in which case I suppose one could have an spkg- > > check that relied on the internet... but that wouldn't be ideal, I > > think. > > But that would also prevent yet another spkg to maintain. We have a > hard enough time keeping up with spkg updates as it is. > > As Robert says, if we're using nose in Sage, that's a different story.
So are you saying we should just give up on having SAGE_CHECK=yes do anything for those packages if the user doesn't already have nose installed? I just don't know what the consensus is on whether the "batteries included" philosophy extends to something (SAGE_CHECK) that the average user and even developer may not use. - kcrisman -- 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
