William Stein <wst...@gmail.com> writes: > On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 12:31 AM, William Stein <wst...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 5:13 PM, Jeroen Demeyer <jdeme...@cage.ugent.be> >> wrote: >>> I disagee when it comes to removing parts of a spkg. Several packages >>> include only partial sources. They contain the upstream tree but with >>> some files/directories (which Sage doesn't need) removed. I think this >>> is fine and should be allowed. >> >> Indeed. Many spkg's are full of stuff we absolutely don't want to > > s/spkg/upstream sources (not spkg's!) > >> ship. They have windows binaries in them, java binaries, big pdf's, >> and other random stuff that wastes space and makes some people >> nervous.
OK, that's reasonable. I withdraw my objection, though it would still be nice if we had a better history of what is or was in the src/ directories of SPKGs, if it is no longer considered possible to determine this simply from the package version minus the patch number. -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
