Great news!
I guess we can finally have a "make donwload" target which only downloads
standard packages now.
And maybe a simple way to cleanup the upstream directory, see #16327.
On Sunday, May 17, 2015 at 8:30:04 AM UTC+2, Nathann Cohen wrote:
>
> > We were not talking about a catalog, but an ad
Hi,
Le 12/05/2015 17:19, Thierry a écrit :
On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 07:19:07AM -0700, Volker Braun wrote:
IMHO:
* The package type (standard/optional/experimental) should be in a file
inside the package directory
+1. Actually, i have a prototype of this for the purpose of checking to
the upst
> We were not talking about a catalog, but an additional file for each
> package, located in build/pkgs/$package/, which just contains
> "standard", "optional", "experimental" or probably "base", say.
Done in #18431 (needs review)
http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/18431
Nathann
--
You received t
On Thursday, 14 May 2015 07:10:10 UTC+1, Nathann Cohen wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> > Really?! Are you saying that looking at standard/*/ is more inconvenient
> > than looking at */* and checking that a file there says standard (or
> have a
> > file
> > named standard) ?
>
> It may not be more con
Hello,
> Really?! Are you saying that looking at standard/*/ is more inconvenient
> than looking at */* and checking that a file there says standard (or have a
> file
> named standard) ?
It may not be more convenient indeed if you only want to remember the
'status' (standard/optional/experimental
On Wednesday, 13 May 2015 22:26:25 UTC+1, leif wrote:
>
> Dima Pasechnik wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 13 May 2015 20:55:16 UTC+1, leif wrote:
> >
> > Dima Pasechnik wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, 13 May 2015 17:55:17 UTC+1, leif wrote:
> > >
> > > Volker Braun wrote:
> > >
Dima Pasechnik wrote:
> On Wednesday, 13 May 2015 20:55:16 UTC+1, leif wrote:
>
> Dima Pasechnik wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 13 May 2015 17:55:17 UTC+1, leif wrote:
> >
> > Volker Braun wrote:
> > > IMHO:
> > >
> > > * The package type (standard/optional/ex
On Wednesday, 13 May 2015 20:55:16 UTC+1, leif wrote:
>
> Dima Pasechnik wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 13 May 2015 17:55:17 UTC+1, leif wrote:
> >
> > Volker Braun wrote:
> > > IMHO:
> > >
> > > * The package type (standard/optional/experimental) should be in a
> > file
> >
Dima Pasechnik wrote:
> On Wednesday, 13 May 2015 17:55:17 UTC+1, leif wrote:
>
> Volker Braun wrote:
> > IMHO:
> >
> > * The package type (standard/optional/experimental) should be in a
> file
> > inside the package directory
>
> hmm...
>
> rather, how about SAGEROOT/bui
On Wednesday, 13 May 2015 17:55:17 UTC+1, leif wrote:
>
> Volker Braun wrote:
> > IMHO:
> >
> > * The package type (standard/optional/experimental) should be in a file
> > inside the package directory
>
hmm...
rather, how about SAGEROOT/build/pkg/standard/
, SAGEROOT/build/pkg/optional/, e
Volker Braun wrote:
> IMHO:
>
> * The package type (standard/optional/experimental) should be in a file
> inside the package directory
Yes. Suggestions?
checksums.ini and package-version.txt don't seem appropriate to add it
there (nor of course SPKG.txt), so we'd need a new file I think.
It wo
On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 08:36:24PM +0200, leif wrote:
[...]
> "Old-style" spkgs have their raison d'ętre (namely, they're
> self-contained); in the long run, we may deprecate them, but we should
> at least keep support for installing such (e.g. ones offered elsewhere).
Of course, since this is th
Volker Braun wrote:
> libm4ri and libm4rie are two different libraries...
Sure. But their "new-style" names are "m4ri" and "m4rie", hence 'sage
--standard' lists the former ones as "not installed" (and doesn't
mention the latter ones because they're not in 'spkg/standard/' on the
servers).
-lei
libm4ri and libm4rie are two different libraries...
On Tuesday, May 12, 2015 at 8:36:38 PM UTC+2, leif wrote:
>
> Thierry wrote:
> > [snip]
> >
> > The problem with pages under http://www.sagemath.org/packages is that
> > they are not up-to-date and there is a conflict with the old-style
>
Thierry wrote:
> [snip]
>
> The problem with pages under http://www.sagemath.org/packages is that
> they are not up-to-date and there is a conflict with the old-style
> versions and the new-style one, for example, if you type ::
>
> sage -standard
>
> it relies on the page http://www.sagema
Hi,
On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 07:19:07AM -0700, Volker Braun wrote:
> IMHO:
>
> * The package type (standard/optional/experimental) should be in a file
> inside the package directory
+1. Actually, i have a prototype of this for the purpose of checking to
the upstream website if a newerver version
IMHO:
* The package type (standard/optional/experimental) should be in a file
inside the package directory
* The build system should check that it builds only standard packages
* Old-style spkgs shouldn't be mashed together with new-style packages,
that is super confusing if you have both.
* Ins
> 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
Nathann Cohen wrote:
>> There's also this dead(?) wiki page:
>>
>> http://wiki.sagemath.org/standard_packages_available_for_SAGE
>>
>> And this one I kept updating for a while (quite some time ago):
>>
>> http://wiki.sagemath.org/Sage_Spkg_Tracking
>
> Fine. Seems to confirm that we need something
Yo !
> There's also this dead(?) wiki page:
>
> http://wiki.sagemath.org/standard_packages_available_for_SAGE
>
> And this one I kept updating for a while (quite some time ago):
>
> http://wiki.sagemath.org/Sage_Spkg_Tracking
Fine. Seems to confirm that we need something more reliable somewhere.
Nathann Cohen wrote:
> Hello everybody,
>
> I am trying to 'clean' a bit some other part of Sage's documentation.
> I found that page, which lists 'some of' the programs shipped in Sage:
>
> http://www.sagemath.org/doc/installation/introduction.html
>
> It is not very clearly presented,
21 matches
Mail list logo
