On Friday, April 8, 2016 at 12:19:57 AM UTC+2, William wrote: > > > You mean like in the Linux kernel, which uses a single monolithic git > > repository? > I think you are being sarcastic.
I'm only partially kidding. Why is the kernel not a collection of packages? Because nobody wants half a kernel, and because the kernel developers don't want to make promises about internal APIs. Similarly, I want a car but please leave out the engine and two of the four wheels said nobody ever. > There are very good reasons to supporting both modularization And there are reasons against as well. Its a tool, and with every tool there are pros and cons. The old adage about the right tool for the right job still holds. The only thing that I'm convinced is that going around and claiming that modularization is the solution of all our problems (without making a concrete proposal about what and how) is not productive. I agree that our current dependency installation system sucks (but are we even talking about that or do you mean the Sage library). You seem to think that pypi/whl is a suitable venue for binary distribution. As I mentioned before, the author of whl doesn't think so for what would be our use case. Of course its trivial to publish a pure Python package on pypi. So a sagemath pypi package that just assumes that you have a dozen obscure math libraries (+headers) on you system to cythonize against? Is that what this thread is even about? -- 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 https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
