Le mercredi 16 mai, Keshav Kini a écrit: > Julien Puydt <julien.pu...@laposte.net> writes: > > Le mercredi 16 mai, William Stein a écrit: > >> I'm against shipping the exact upstream tarballs with Sage, as > >> explained above (e.g., what if they contain opaque Windows > >> binaries?). > > > > My impression is that the current situations occur (sorted in very > > fast decreasing frequency) : > > (1) upstream tarball is ready to ship (tarballs obtained from 'make > > dist' with autotools generally belong to that category) ; > > (2) upstream tarball is in fact obtained by taking a snapshot from a > > repository (there something more might be needed, like running some > > kind of autogen.sh, removing .hg/.svn/.git/.whatever) ; > > (3) upstream tarball is a mess for various reasons. > > > > So there is definitely a need for some script to prepare the shipped > > tarball. Let me call it spkg-get-upstream-tarball for the rest. > > > > For (1), that script could just be a one-liner wget (or is that a > > too big dependency?). > > Python has the ability to download files with the urllib2 module. We > don't need wget for this.
Good. > > For (2), that script would be a few lines to checkout and remove the > > cruft. Perhaps sage could even have a generic > > spkg-get-upstream-from-vs script which would be called something > > like : spkg-get-upstream-from-vs --git git://url/to/upstream/foo > > that would take care of doing the checkout and removing the obvious > > directories ; that way each spkg-get-upstream-tarball would just > > call that generic script, then do additional actions. > > IMO it's not really necessary to have a script which automates this. > We don't upgrade versions of stuff very often, and I think this can > easily be done manually. Ok. > > For (3), that script would do everything by hand. > > It doesn't make sense to me to have a script that would "do everything > by hand". Why not just... do it by hand? Because the goal is to have something to document what is done by hand, and the best way to document it is to have the script of those actions :-) > > How many (3) are there anyway? > > Good question. Yes, because the main point of the discussion is "We can't do that because if...". Snark on #sagemath -- 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
