On 2015-02-19 12:56, Julien Puydt wrote:
Well, examples exist where poor choices have been made which make(made)
it harder for other projects.
From the top of my head :
(1) ECL was configured to disable SIGCHLD... by patching it! I proposed
a two-line patch which did it programmatically from sage's code.
(2) PARI/GP is configured using a gprc... shipped by the spkg -- ticket
#17796 is about pushing that in sage's code.
Sure, these are two examples where improvement is possible. Sage
developers are not perfect and there are indeed many things in Sage
which are less than optimal.
I never said that we shouldn't improve where we can. Indeed, (1) has
been fixed and I am willing to review (2). However, don't let these two
rather trivial issues distract you from the bigger issue of package
dependencies.
I don't think software was ever delayed for debian.
If people are against #16997 because it's not compatible with Debian,
then Debian is *already* slowing down Sage.
Jeroen.
--
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
