On Tuesday, June 26, 2012 5:58:12 AM UTC-4, Javier López Peña wrote: > > I am all for having data-scrapping tools easily available, but is there > any actual advantage on having an spkg rahter than using easy_install, or > is it just for the convenience of the sws2rst conversion? > > That being said, why make the spkg with BS3 rather than BS4? I believe BS4 > breaks some backwards compatibility, so interfacing BS3 now might force to > throw in a lot of deprecation warnings when/if an eventual upgrade comes > in, though the spkg being optional, one might as well consider that > backwards compatibility is a non-requirement. > >
BS3 is purely for convenience. BS3 is same license as Python, BS4 is MIT so I didn't want to have to pretend to be a lawyer, and Pablo's code is based on BS3, and I didn't want to have to rewrite it. On that note, note that as long as the sws2rst still had the same syntax, breaking backward compatibility would not be much of a problem; none of the functions are really supposed to be used by the end user in the stuff that relies on BS. > So, summarizing, I have no strong feelings in the spke vs easy_install > thing, but if having it as an optional spkg makes someone's life easier, my > vote is just go for it. > This would be to make it easier for someone who has not used easy_install before but has installed spkgs (a nontrivial subset of the population, I think). We have a number of Python spkgs that presumably wouldn't need to be spkgs. But again, simply for consistency/convenience; it's nice to have the supply chain all be "Sageified". Thanks, - kcrisman -- 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
