On Thursday, March 29, 2012 6:56:52 PM UTC-7, Dima Pasechnik wrote: > > On 2012-03-29, John H Palmieri wrote: > > > > If only there were some way to add explanatory comments to the "deps" > > file... > > there is a clean way to handle this: it would involve creating a separate > "testing" dependencies graph, of which the "building" dependencies graph > will be a subgraph. > > The latter will trigger the rebuild of dependencies, not the former one. > Testing will use the former graph. > > Alternatively, an appropriate environmental variable (hopefully an > existing one) > would specify which of the graphs is used. > Leif's suggestion (using the environment variable $SAGE_CHECK to set a make variable to either "$(INST)/$(MATPLOTLB)" or the empty string, and then using that variable as a dependency for cvxopt) is a fine way to do it, I think. Not that many packages have documented differences between building requirements and testing requirements; cvxopt and sagetex are the two examples I know of. Right now this seems like extra work without much gain. At some point, if someone wants to implement it, or implement two entirely separate dependency graphs, that would be fine.
-- John -- 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
