Robert Bradshaw <[email protected]> writes: > On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 1:00 AM, Keshav Kini <[email protected]> wrote: >> William Stein <[email protected]> writes: >>> I think the reason I implemented the kludgy "sage -clone" Sage branch >>> thing (way back in maybe March 2006) was because we had no dependency >>> checking for Pyrex files. Now that we have dependency checking, >>> lightweight branching should be able to accomplish the same thing much >>> more efficiently, right? >> >> I have no idea how Cython works, it all seems like magic to me :) So I >> have no idea whether there's some problem with getting rid of `sage >> -clone`. But even if not, then I think it's Cython which needs to be >> fixed. `sage -clone` should not exist, IMO. > > Cython is just a py(x) to C compiler. The problem is not Cython per > se, but re-building when changing branches. Each "clone" keeps it's > own independent set of build artifacts, so switching between them does > not require a re-build.
Sure, that much I certainly understand. I don't know what William is saying about dependency checking, though. Well, on second thought maybe I can guess. Is it that Cython now knows how to check which files have been touched, and then do a cascading rebuild of all outdated .so files? If previously you required a total rebuild every time you ran `sage -b`, I can see why you would want to keep a separate copy of the Sage library which you never ran `sage -b` on. -Keshav ---- Join us in #sagemath on irc.freenode.net ! -- To post to this group, send an email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URL: http://www.sagemath.org
