Let's drop debian-science from CC. For those interested, the thread on sage-devel is at https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!topic/sage-devel/1HGbf4EZGb0
Am 11.04.2013 22:27, schrieb Felix Salfelder: > in debian, one source package can create multiple binary packages. > this for example makes sense, when seperate (but related) lib*, *-dev, > *-doc, *-dbg packages are convenient. packing unrelated stuff from a > single source repo do different binary packages usually leads to > overhead within the rules (which will probably not even work for the > next release). > > so theres the inevitable question to ask: > would it be an option to eventually split c_lib and the python modules > to different packages? > If they are each in a selfcontained folder it's not too much hassle to repack them from the one tarball. (Ok, still some hassle.) However, I don't see why they should not be in one source package. Because linking to c_lib has to be done differently when it is not installed on the system when the package is built? An important implication of having stuff together in a source package is usually that they have to be updated together. That is the case for the parts of Sage. By the way, does c_lib have a stable ABI so that it is reasonable to have it as a public shared library? Would that be useful? > >>> It would still be nice if the top level script could be used by >>> distributions. [...] > > i'm not convinced. once all parts (including python-sage and c_lib) are > in a distributable/configurable shape, any distribution will be able to > pick them up easily. especially there will be no need for distributions > to use sage's built in top-level script. > > whatever a top level script does, it will never fit the needs of all > distributions at once. just think about building a multiarch ready > package out of c_lib, while it is only accessible within a tarball > containing the sources of five other packages, through a patchwork of a > sage-toplevel script and an spkg-install script calling "scons install" > through a static makefile (or setup.py or whatever). Sounds reasonable. Would you take care that the Sage distribution also build python-sage, c_lib, etc using the new configurable process? Cheers, Tobias -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
