The only real advantages of keeping the upstream sources packaged is that (1) you can know what's in them, check md5sums, etc., and (2) there's less chance of introducing hard-to-find errors by fat- fingering a particular unpacked source file. But I'm happy to unpack, too.
On Nov 15, 2:01 pm, Maarten Derickx <m.derickx.stud...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi, > > > there is another reason: > > "tar" is not necessarily equal to "tar". The Sage build scripts try to > > use only the most generic options, and provenly work on the supported > > number of systems. If you provide some file tarred upstream, then this > > might not be "out-of-the-box" readable by the system tar on some of > > the supported platforms (think of e.g. Solaris). Sage could bring its > > own tar with it to circumvent this problem, but up to now, there was > > no real need for that. > > This is not a valid argument since all spkg files are already tarred and > gnu tar is requiered on solaris anyway. Just to quote from > $SAGE_ROOT/spkg/base/prereq-0.9-install > > if [ `uname` = "SunOS" ] ; then > if [ -z "`tar --version 2>&1 | grep GNU`" ] ; then > echo "" > echo "ERROR **********************************************" > echo "ERROR **********************************************" > echo "You MUST also use the GNU version of tar, as some parts" > echo "of the Sage source code are compressed tar files, which" > echo "were compressed with GNU tar. GNU tar does not produce" > echo "POSIX compliant tar files unless called with the --posix" > echo "option, so can not always be extracted with Sun's tar." > > Altough I do agree that the src directory should not be tarred. Mainly for > the reasons by William. And since the spkg are tarred already there is also > no benefit in size. -- 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
