Followups to sage-flame please...
On Saturday, February 21, 2015 at 6:14:33 PM UTC+1, Felix Salfelder wrote: > > Hi Volker. > > actually i anticipate that you know better. anyway i reply. again. just > for the record. > > On Sat, Feb 21, 2015 at 06:55:26AM -0800, Volker Braun wrote: > > That is not true. What is true is that none of the core developers wants > to > > make their life even more difficult so that the debian packages have > less > > to do. > > this is *not* *about* *debian*. only about 1/3 of linux installations > are debian based. a lot of distributions are not even based on any > other. sage does not only run on linux. go figure. > > > At the bottom of it, it is a social rather than a technical problem. You > > need to convince people that you have a better way, and be able to > listen > > to upstream projects. > > at no time did i have a better way to do what you do. i wanted to try > something else. somehing more straightforward. i listened to upstream > and i have dropped the idea (see my last mail). still i do not know > which other way might have done the trick. for the very least i did not > try to move to portage. conversation could have been more productive. > > > Trying to rip out cythonize() because automake doesn't do wildcards? > > i fell back to automake, because cythonize does not support dependency > tracking. does it today? don't know. needless to say that i have asked > for alternatives. out-of-tree builds solved a different set of > problems. afaik, the recompile-everything-everytime issue stroke back a > few months ago... > > while i tried to address some of these issues (yes, the technical > side), i learned that > - modularisation is evil > - libgap is necessary and must pretend to be gap > - tabs are bad and so are makefiles > - autotools releases must be pulled from git > - capitalization is important > and maybe other surprising or interesting things that i forgot about > (still, thanks for the useful input!). > > and again: in which way does autotools not support wildcards? i guess > you are pointing to the fact that i did not want to rely on them. just > add it to the list above. > > > And you are surprised that this did not make it upstream? > > no. should i? this was never complete nor will it be of any use for the > better-bootstrap-the-universe folks. it is not your obligation to > support or even think any of this. > > sage is a great/interesting piece of software. sure, attempts to package > (with or without help from upstream) will not die down. it is a matter > of how to deal with external ideas, needs and resources. hopefully, my > project will serve as a warning to others and eventually justify a fork > that avoids sage-the-distribution completely. just sagelib alone is > considerably simpler to deal with. for packaging you don't need > dependency tracking *hint hint*. > > all the best > felix > -- 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.
