Otherwise it sets `$(inst_<spkg>)` to a
dummy file that always exists (this way any dependencies for that
package are still satisfied, but the spkg is never actually
built/installed).
Let me mention *why* I came up with this dummy file: even if configure
detects that a Sage package is not needed, it can still be explicitly
installed by
sage -i PKGNAME # This is essentially the same as "make PKGNAME"
If I understand your proposal, if a system package is used, sage -i
PKGNAME will *not* install the Sage package since the "spkg" is
satisfied by the system package.
Personally, I find it more intuitive if "sage -i PKGNAME" would
unconditionally install the Sage package PKGNAME, even if PKGNAME was
detected as system package.
By default, all packages would be installed from the sage-dist source
as is the case now.
I wonder why you propose this. The reason why we check for gcc for
example is because we want to avoid building the Sage package if we can.
If you go to the trouble of adding a check for system packages, the
default should be to *not* install the Sage package if the system
package works.
Apart from these two points, I totally agree with your post. Now to find
a volunteer to implement all that :-)
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 https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
