> On 1/06/2017, at 23:27, Kwankyu Lee <ekwan...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I also thought about building both py2+3 at the same time, it would be a > great debugging help during the transition if you can easily run both. Then > in 3 years we'll just cut out the py2 part and be done with it... > > I am thinking of what would be the real benefits, compared with the scheme: > > I keep two sage git repos at sage2/ and sage3/ and build sage2/ for python2 > and sage3/ for python3. I fix a problem in python3 built and commit the fix. > Then I import the commit to the python2 repo and check if the commit does not > break python2 built. > > In the proposed scheme, we would not need to move the commits around. Are > there other advantages besides this? > > And we should consider if these benefits (not yet clear to me) outweigh the > extra efforts to make sage buildable to run with both python2 and python3. >
Actually there has been some work on enabling sage to be built and installed in a prefix that isn’t under SAGE_ROOT. This is why we now have sage-env-config. So you could do a run of configure of sage with python2 and install it in $prefix_python2 and then do the same for python3 but install it in $prefix_python3. Out of the same source tree. Some cleaning may be required between builds, I haven’t actually worked on the functionality myself. François -- 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.
