On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 19:42:06 Jason Grout wrote: > 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? > No loss indeed. Yes, that's 2 vote so far, let's see when other people get up.
Francois -- 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
