> That's perhaps a bit problematic at the moment; also, at least some > tests may require internet access (although we could tag them > accordingly). Should we document/test their versions as well?
Technically, the list of standard packages is available in Sage directly (build/install). Maybe we should have a file whose content is the list of standard packages (and only that) which build/install could then load? Volker, what do you think? It seems that all lines in build/install are of the form package_name=`newest_version package_name`. Couldn't we generate this from the list of packages instead? > Furthermore, in the "git layout" we only have "new-style" packages > (which are currently still a subset of standard+optional), with no > differentiation between standard and optional; there, experimental > packages (and "the" huge one?) are missing completely AFAIK. Yep, only those which have been converted into 'new-style' packages appear there. Though you can get these lists with: sage -standard sage -optional sage -experimental All of them require an internet connection. Nathann -- 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.
