Simon King <simon.k...@uni-jena.de> writes: > Hi Jeroen, > > On 2012-05-02, Jeroen Demeyer <jdeme...@cage.ugent.be> wrote: >> On 2012-05-02 21:18, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote: >>> Would it be fair to say that the optional packages should be considered >>> unreliable? >> Indeed. That could be one of the reasons they are considered "optional". > > Really?? I hope I am allowed to disagree. > > I thought that optional packages are supposed to work on all supported > platforms and are supposed to be reliable (and peer reviewed and so on) > - which is why there are *experimental* packages, that may lack reliability. > And that is also why there is a component "optional packages" on trac. > > I thought that there are optional packages (in contrast to standard > packages) since > * in some cases the licence does not allow to include code as > standard package, and > * in some cases a package provides good stuff that, however, > is only relevant to a small proportion of users.
+1, I completely agree. If a package is unreliable it should be experimental, not optional. -Keshav ---- Join us in #sagemath on irc.freenode.net ! -- 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
