Fine with me. But if the src directory is allowed to be a modified version of upstream, why not just integrate the Sage-specific patches directly into the sources, too?
Bill On Nov 15, 11:29 am, William Stein <wst...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 11:13 AM, Bill Janssen <bill.jans...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I'm a bit unclear as to why third-party source packages are unpacked > > in an spkg? Since the patching protocol is very strict, would it make > > sense for me to include Imaging-1.1.7.tar in the "src" directory of > > the spkg, instead of unpacking it into raw files? > > Please don't do that, if for no other reason than that there are over > 100 packages that don't do that, and over 100 people who are used to > having src by the extracted upstream source. > > We could have included a tarball version of the src directory in > spkg's, but that just slows down development (one has to go through an > extra step to look at it every time) and complicates things, and it > doesn't actually prove anything about the contents actually being > correct. Also, often upstream tarballs are full of crap (e.g., > windows binaries, pdf's that are huge and useless, etc.) that have to > be deleted. > > -- William > > -- > William Stein > Professor of Mathematics > University of Washingtonhttp://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
