Hi! On 2018-03-25, Volker Braun <vbraun.n...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sunday, March 25, 2018 at 2:51:46 PM UTC+2, Dima Pasechnik wrote: >> >> one can install autotools on archlinux systemwide >> > > Also, autotools aren't even required to build Sage. > > Whats the point of delaying a release for weeks/months to fix an optional > package? Presumably you agree that broken standard packages should have the > highest priority, so broken optional packages necessarily have a lower > priority.
In my previous post I didn't understand that the actual point of this thread apparently is not "How much support are we supposed to provide for optional packages?", but "Are optional packages important enough to constitute a blocker?". As a maintainer of a former optional package, I repeatedly found it annoying that the package got broken by changes in SageMath. It feels like EACH TIME I fix upstream to make it work with the latest Sage version and open a ticket for upgrading the package, BEFORE THE REVIEW IS FINISHED there will be yet another change in Sage that breaks the just-fixed package yet again. For that reason, I lost the impetus at some point, and now the package doesn't properly work since several years. Therefore I do believe that Sage development should treat optional packages with more respect. However, I do agree that broken optional packages have a lower priority than broken standard packages. The latter is a blocker, thus the former should be regarded as "critical", but not necessarily "blocker". Best regards, Simon -- 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.
