On 1/16/12 5:09 PM, François Bissey wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 17:01:00 Jason Grout wrote:
On 1/16/12 4:53 PM, François Bissey wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 16:36:50 jason-s...@creativetrax.com wrote:
Hi everyone,
We don't apply any customizations to twisted anymore; we just install
it
straight as a python package. I think it would be easier to just
include it in the sagenb spkg as a dependency (like flask, etc.).
That
would mean that we automatically get the latest twisted every time the
sagenb spkg is updated, instead of having to maintain a separate
twisted
spkg. Does anyone have any objections to removing the twisted spkg
and
including twisted into the sagenb spkg?
Please vote:
[ ] Yes, remove the twisted spkg and include twisted in the sagenb
spkg
as a dependency
[ ] No, keep the twisted spkg as a separate spkg
I generally not in favor of spkg inside other spkg. On the other hands
sagenb is pretty much independent of the rest of sage and twisted is
only used in the notebook as far as I know.
twisted won't be a full spkg inside of an spkg. Already, the sagenb
spkg includes a number of dependencies, and twisted would just be added
to those (like flask, various flask extensions, pytz, etc.)
It would be trivial to make a "bare" sagenb spkg that doesn't include
any dependencies, but relies on them being installed already (or
downloads them from the internet on-the-fly).
So:
If twisted is only used by the notebook include it in sagenb, make its
maintenance the sole responsibility of sagenb. Otherwise keep it
separate.
Yes, this would be mean that twisted is the sole responsibility of the
sagenb project.
Mind you that including twisted in sagenb will hurt in sage-on-gentoo
because if we use the spkg to distribute it we will waste bandwith
since we use twisted provided by the system.
Would the above "bare" spkg help you? At one point, we also had two
spkgs---sagenb and sagenb-dependencies. Would you vote returning to
that two-spkg model?
That would actually be very nice for us! I would vote for the two spkg model.
Making a sagenb spkg and an optional bare sagenb spkg would actually be
easier to set up, and I presume no loss for you guys, right?
So I count 2 yes votes (including mine) to eliminating the twisted spkg.
Does anyone else have an opinion?
Thanks,
Jason
--
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
