Le 06/07/2013 14:27, Volker Braun a écrit :
On Saturday, July 6, 2013 1:02:54 AM UTC-4, Snark wrote:Do we really need nef.x, poly.x, etc. ; I mean if the executables names don't reflect what they are good for, perhaps we (both in sage and in debian) should stick to -<num>d.x variants? In principle we don't need an unnumbered poly.x, though for backward compatibility it would be nice to have it. Ideally it would be a symlink to poly-6d.x
That's exactly what my packaging does. Snark on #sagemath -- 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
