Re: [sage-devel] Re: Patches overwriting patches in singular
On 30 June 2010 10:47, Ralf Hemmecke wrote: >> So if we added GNU patch, and removed two of the many excess files >> from Python alone, we would save a few disk space. > > Is it actually an issue, how long sage builds? Why build gpatch if mercurial > is built by default and would do the job? I don't understand you guys. > > Ralf As has been pointed out, Mercurial depends on Python, which has patches to it. So you have a chicken and egg situation. The version of Python shipped with Solaris 10 is too old to build Mercurial. In contrast, GNU patch would be a small low-maintenance package. I doubt there would ever be a need to update it. Dave -- To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URL: http://www.sagemath.org
Re: [sage-devel] Re: Patches overwriting patches in singular
On 30 June 2010 02:16, Tim Daly wrote: > We use a naming convention for patches. > Thus the 3rd new patch created today by me would have the name: > > 20100629.03.tpd.patch > > which orders the patches by date, sub-sequence, and author. > You might want to use your spkg name instead as in: > > 20100629.03.singular.patch > > This would ensure that patches are unique. Personally, rather than initials, I think it would be better if the letters were a persons username on the trac server. So patches I created would have 'drkirkby' in them rather than 'drk'. In some cases (was, rlm), I suspect trac user names are peoples initials, but that's not always the case. dave -- To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URL: http://www.sagemath.org
Re: [sage-devel] Re: Patches overwriting patches in singular
So if we added GNU patch, and removed two of the many excess files from Python alone, we would save a few disk space. Is it actually an issue, how long sage builds? Why build gpatch if mercurial is built by default and would do the job? I don't understand you guys. Ralf -- To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URL: http://www.sagemath.org
Re: [sage-devel] Re: Patches overwriting patches in singular
On 30 June 2010 01:38, Mike Hansen wrote: > On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 5:31 PM, Dr. David Kirkby > wrote: >> I can't myself see what we gain having the diff and the modified version. >> Even if we stick to using 'cp' (which is a bad idea in my opinion), I would >> much rather create the diff myself if I want to see it. > > The modified version is for copying over. The diff is stored in the > repository so that you don't need to go download old versions of > source code if you want to see what the changes are. > >> Experience tells me that if there is a file called 'diff' it is quite likely >> an old one which someone has not updated. So I personally never trust their >> contents - I'd just rather create it myself if I need it. Since they can't >> be trust, I don't believe they serve a useful function myself. > > The spkg shouldn't get a positive review if those are not up to date. To give you one specific example, look at latest (python-2.6.4.p9) Python .spkg and you will find the cPickle.c.patch file is 3 months older than the file it should have been generated from. -rw-r- 1 drkirkby staff 121K Jan 11 20:40 cPickle.c -rw-r- 1 drkirkby staff290 Oct 9 2009 cPickle.c.patch Also worth noting is that the Modules.socketmodule.c file in the latest python is 133 KB in size. -rw-r--r-- 1 drkirkby staff 133K May 30 22:38 Modules.socketmodule.c If we removed just those two files from python, that would save us 252 KB of of disk space. The size of the latest version of GNU patch is 248 KB http://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/patch/patch-2.6.1.tar.bz2 So if we added GNU patch, and removed two of the many excess files from Python alone, we would save a few disk space. Dave -- To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URL: http://www.sagemath.org
Re: [sage-devel] Re: Patches overwriting patches in singular
Why would one need an extra 'patch' program? mercurial is a python program - python needs some patches, see a problem with using mercurial on its own? ??? Sage uses a patched python? And the python people don't want to fix these issues? OK, life is tough. Anyway, then restrict this copy mechanism to just python and perhaps mercurial if you also must patch mercurial. But all the other packages should just be using mercurial. Why spread this copy disease all over the place? And as for python, I would have the sources living in a hg repo with the patches directly living in a branch. When distributing the spkg, you simply distribute the sources of the modified branch. If ever somebody wants to have python without the patches (who would want that in the context of sage anyway?--one would probably clone the original python.org) that would be a simple branch switch, no? So not even here is patch or cp really necessary. Ralf -- To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URL: http://www.sagemath.org
Re: [sage-devel] Re: Patches overwriting patches in singular
> On 06/30/2010 02:05 AM, Dr. David Kirkby wrote: > > On 06/30/10 12:54 AM, Tim Daly wrote: > >> I'm surprised you don't use patch. > >> Mercurial can generate patches. > > > > That would only be ok at the point Mercurial is built, so might be > > tricky. > > $SAGE_ROOT/sage/spkg/standard/deps says... > > all: $(INST)/$(SAGE_SCRIPTS) $(INST)/$(SAGE) \ > $(INST)/$(EXAMPLES) $(INST)/$(GAP) $(INST)/$(SINGULAR) > ^^^ > $(INST)/$(MAXIMA) \ > $(INST)/$(G2RED) $(INST)/$(LCALC) $(INST)/$(SYMPOW) > $(INST)/$(MATPLOTLIB) \ > $(INST)/$(GFAN) $(INST)/$(ECM) $(INST)/$(TACHYON) \ > $(INST)/$(GIVARO) $(INST)/$(LINBOX) $(INST)/$(IML) \ > $(INST)/$(SYMMETRICA) $(INST)/$(POLYBORI) \ > $(INST)/$(GSL) $(INST)/$(GD) $(INST)/$(GDMODULE) \ > $(INST)/$(MERCURIAL) $(INST)/$(TWISTED) $(INST)/$(TWISTEDWEB2) \ > > > What about moving Mercurial some lines up? > > Then for the spkg, the src subdirectory would only contain a subdir > .hg and nothing else. This would contain all the sources of the > respective spkg which can then simply be extracted via 'hg update -C'. > Building this src subdir just means to say >hg init; hg add .; hg commit -m'singular-7.42.1' > and remove everything except .hg. > > Now one could, of course use a branch and put the patches already into > this .hg repo, but if you like to have them separate, put it into a > patches directory and then use 'hg import'. > > Why would one need an extra 'patch' program? > mercurial is a python program - python needs some patches, see a problem with using mercurial on its own? Francois -- To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URL: http://www.sagemath.org
Re: [sage-devel] Re: Patches overwriting patches in singular
On 06/30/2010 02:05 AM, Dr. David Kirkby wrote: On 06/30/10 12:54 AM, Tim Daly wrote: I'm surprised you don't use patch. Mercurial can generate patches. That would only be ok at the point Mercurial is built, so might be tricky. $SAGE_ROOT/sage/spkg/standard/deps says... all: $(INST)/$(SAGE_SCRIPTS) $(INST)/$(SAGE) \ $(INST)/$(EXAMPLES) $(INST)/$(GAP) $(INST)/$(SINGULAR) ^^^ $(INST)/$(MAXIMA) \ $(INST)/$(G2RED) $(INST)/$(LCALC) $(INST)/$(SYMPOW) $(INST)/$(MATPLOTLIB) \ $(INST)/$(GFAN) $(INST)/$(ECM) $(INST)/$(TACHYON) \ $(INST)/$(GIVARO) $(INST)/$(LINBOX) $(INST)/$(IML) \ $(INST)/$(SYMMETRICA) $(INST)/$(POLYBORI) \ $(INST)/$(GSL) $(INST)/$(GD) $(INST)/$(GDMODULE) \ $(INST)/$(MERCURIAL) $(INST)/$(TWISTED) $(INST)/$(TWISTEDWEB2) \ What about moving Mercurial some lines up? Then for the spkg, the src subdirectory would only contain a subdir .hg and nothing else. This would contain all the sources of the respective spkg which can then simply be extracted via 'hg update -C'. Building this src subdir just means to say hg init; hg add .; hg commit -m'singular-7.42.1' and remove everything except .hg. Now one could, of course use a branch and put the patches already into this .hg repo, but if you like to have them separate, put it into a patches directory and then use 'hg import'. Why would one need an extra 'patch' program? Ralf -- To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URL: http://www.sagemath.org
Re: [sage-devel] Re: Patches overwriting patches in singular
On Jun 29, 2010, at 5:57 PM, Dr. David Kirkby wrote: On 06/30/10 01:38 AM, Mike Hansen wrote: On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 5:31 PM, Dr. David Kirkby wrote: I can't myself see what we gain having the diff and the modified version. Even if we stick to using 'cp' (which is a bad idea in my opinion), I would much rather create the diff myself if I want to see it. The modified version is for copying over. The diff is stored in the repository so that you don't need to go download old versions of source code if you want to see what the changes are. But if there are two three files src/foo.c patches/foo.c patches/foo.c.diff what does patches/foo.c.diff possibly give me that could could get by running diff src/foo.c patches/foo.c ? Having all three files is certainly an issue, as they're unlikely to all be kept in sync. Experience tells me that if there is a file called 'diff' it is quite likely an old one which someone has not updated. So I personally never trust their contents - I'd just rather create it myself if I need it. Since they can't be trust, I don't believe they serve a useful function myself. The spkg shouldn't get a positive review if those are not up to date. I don't disbelieve you. But in practice I know that if I want to see the difference between two files, I run diff myself. Personally I believe if we added the small GNU patch utility to Sage, it save more space than it uses. We could over time delete a lot of large files, which have only small changes from original large files. I personally thing it'd be better to just include patch. --Mike Me too. But I think William was quite against using 'patch'. If a user has gcc, they almost certainly have patch (or, as mentioned, we could provide it), so I don't think dependancies are that big of an issue. Personally, I would rather have the patch files (as what was changed seems to be the most important piece of data here, and we don't have issues like we had with the recent pari spkg where the copied files weren't updated when the sources were--patches aren't as brittle in this way). Also, patch files contain metadata (e.g. what files their patching, no matter how deep down the tree, and patch programs should ignore the "header" before the patch starts where additional useful explanations can be put. Then they could even be applied automatically as part of the spkg installing process, rather than having to have a list of cp commands. Is it worth revisiting the issue? - Robert -- To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URL: http://www.sagemath.org
Re: [sage-devel] Re: Patches overwriting patches in singular
We use a naming convention for patches. Thus the 3rd new patch created today by me would have the name: 20100629.03.tpd.patch which orders the patches by date, sub-sequence, and author. You might want to use your spkg name instead as in: 20100629.03.singular.patch This would ensure that patches are unique. Mike Hansen wrote: On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 5:57 PM, Dr. David Kirkby wrote: But if there are two three files src/foo.c patches/foo.c patches/foo.c.diff what does patches/foo.c.diff possibly give me that could could get by running diff src/foo.c patches/foo.c ? This requires that patches/foo.c was made from src/foo.c. This is the case for the current version, but if you look at a previous version of patches/foo.c in the repository, you have to go out and get the corresponding src/foo.c from the internet in order to see what the change actually was. --Mike -- To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URL: http://www.sagemath.org
Re: [sage-devel] Re: Patches overwriting patches in singular
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 5:57 PM, Dr. David Kirkby wrote: > But if there are two three files > > src/foo.c > patches/foo.c > patches/foo.c.diff > > what does patches/foo.c.diff possibly give me that could could get by > running > > diff src/foo.c patches/foo.c ? This requires that patches/foo.c was made from src/foo.c. This is the case for the current version, but if you look at a previous version of patches/foo.c in the repository, you have to go out and get the corresponding src/foo.c from the internet in order to see what the change actually was. --Mike -- To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URL: http://www.sagemath.org
Re: [sage-devel] Re: Patches overwriting patches in singular
On 06/30/10 01:38 AM, Mike Hansen wrote: On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 5:31 PM, Dr. David Kirkby wrote: I can't myself see what we gain having the diff and the modified version. Even if we stick to using 'cp' (which is a bad idea in my opinion), I would much rather create the diff myself if I want to see it. The modified version is for copying over. The diff is stored in the repository so that you don't need to go download old versions of source code if you want to see what the changes are. But if there are two three files src/foo.c patches/foo.c patches/foo.c.diff what does patches/foo.c.diff possibly give me that could could get by running diff src/foo.c patches/foo.c ? Experience tells me that if there is a file called 'diff' it is quite likely an old one which someone has not updated. So I personally never trust their contents - I'd just rather create it myself if I need it. Since they can't be trust, I don't believe they serve a useful function myself. The spkg shouldn't get a positive review if those are not up to date. I don't disbelieve you. But in practice I know that if I want to see the difference between two files, I run diff myself. Personally I believe if we added the small GNU patch utility to Sage, it save more space than it uses. We could over time delete a lot of large files, which have only small changes from original large files. I personally thing it'd be better to just include patch. --Mike Me too. But I think William was quite against using 'patch'. If he has a change of mind, I don't mind putting together the .spkg file for it. It wont sort out the Singular mess just now, but perhaps might stop it becoming so messy in the future when it gets upgraded. Dave -- To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URL: http://www.sagemath.org
Re: [sage-devel] Re: Patches overwriting patches in singular
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 5:31 PM, Dr. David Kirkby wrote: > I can't myself see what we gain having the diff and the modified version. > Even if we stick to using 'cp' (which is a bad idea in my opinion), I would > much rather create the diff myself if I want to see it. The modified version is for copying over. The diff is stored in the repository so that you don't need to go download old versions of source code if you want to see what the changes are. > Experience tells me that if there is a file called 'diff' it is quite likely > an old one which someone has not updated. So I personally never trust their > contents - I'd just rather create it myself if I need it. Since they can't > be trust, I don't believe they serve a useful function myself. The spkg shouldn't get a positive review if those are not up to date. > Personally I believe if we added the small GNU patch utility to Sage, it > save more space than it uses. We could over time delete a lot of large > files, which have only small changes from original large files. I personally thing it'd be better to just include patch. --Mike -- To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URL: http://www.sagemath.org
Re: [sage-devel] Re: Patches overwriting patches in singular
On 06/30/10 01:02 AM, Mike Hansen wrote: On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 4:54 PM, Tim Daly wrote: I'm surprised you don't use patch. Mercurial can generate patches. The issue is not generating the patches -- it's applying them. All of the spkgs (should) have the diff as well as the file with the patch applied. --Mike I can't myself see what we gain having the diff and the modified version. Even if we stick to using 'cp' (which is a bad idea in my opinion), I would much rather create the diff myself if I want to see it. Experience tells me that if there is a file called 'diff' it is quite likely an old one which someone has not updated. So I personally never trust their contents - I'd just rather create it myself if I need it. Since they can't be trust, I don't believe they serve a useful function myself. Personally I believe if we added the small GNU patch utility to Sage, it save more space than it uses. We could over time delete a lot of large files, which have only small changes from original large files. Dave -- To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URL: http://www.sagemath.org
Re: [sage-devel] Re: Patches overwriting patches in singular
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 5:25 PM, Tim Daly wrote: > Perhaps I'm being thick about this. In Axiom's build > we have a zip file for GCL source code. At build time > we unzip the GCL source, THEN apply our patches, THEN > we do a build. > > Why wouldn't this process work in Sage? This is basically what happens, except instead of using patch to change the source code in place, the patched file is "pre-computed" and then just copied over. This avoids having patch as a requirement on the machines that Sage is building on. > Sage requires all of GCC to be installed. > Surely requiring patch is not a lot more overhead. > In the worst case, add the source for patch and build > your own copy early in the build process. For better or worse, a long time ago it was decided that patch was not a prerequisite which is why things are the way they are now. > Sending/posting/trading "diff -Naur" patches is a long > standing tradition in open source. Sage is the only > project I've ever heard of that doesn't use them. They are used in the spkgs and all over http://trac.sagemath.org/ --Mike -- To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URL: http://www.sagemath.org
Re: [sage-devel] Re: Patches overwriting patches in singular
Perhaps I'm being thick about this. In Axiom's build we have a zip file for GCL source code. At build time we unzip the GCL source, THEN apply our patches, THEN we do a build. Why wouldn't this process work in Sage? Sage requires all of GCC to be installed. Surely requiring patch is not a lot more overhead. In the worst case, add the source for patch and build your own copy early in the build process. Sending/posting/trading "diff -Naur" patches is a long standing tradition in open source. Sage is the only project I've ever heard of that doesn't use them. Mike Hansen wrote: On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 4:54 PM, Tim Daly wrote: I'm surprised you don't use patch. Mercurial can generate patches. The issue is not generating the patches -- it's applying them. All of the spkgs (should) have the diff as well as the file with the patch applied. --Mike -- To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URL: http://www.sagemath.org
Re: [sage-devel] Re: Patches overwriting patches in singular
On 06/30/10 12:20 AM, Nils Bruin wrote: On Jun 29, 4:13 pm, François Bissey wrote: sage doesn't assume that the patch command is installed but rely on cp being there. That's why patch aren't used. I agree not ideal but that's a lowest common denominator issue. Perhaps compare the md5sum of the original and bail if it's not the expected number? Any time a file changes, the file we replace it with in the spkg-install should probably change as well. Do our prerequisites include some checksumming or hashing utility? I've suggested general idea before, but I would not use md5, since there is no standard name for a program to compute the md5 checksum. Sage would have to ship its own. $ md5 foobar.c $ md5sum foobar.c $ digest -a md5 foobar.c would be at least 3 different commands I would try, and still not be sure any would work. In contrast 'cksum', which is defined by POSIX would be on any real Unix system and I think most linux systems. That's a 32-bit checksum, so sufficient for this sort of task. But personally I think patch files are better. Dave -- To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URL: http://www.sagemath.org
Re: [sage-devel] Re: Patches overwriting patches in singular
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 4:54 PM, Tim Daly wrote: > I'm surprised you don't use patch. > Mercurial can generate patches. The issue is not generating the patches -- it's applying them. All of the spkgs (should) have the diff as well as the file with the patch applied. --Mike -- To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URL: http://www.sagemath.org
Re: [sage-devel] Re: Patches overwriting patches in singular
On 06/30/10 12:39 AM, François Bissey wrote: On Jun 29, 4:13 pm, François Bissey wrote: sage doesn't assume that the patch command is installed but rely on cp being there. That's why patch aren't used. I agree not ideal but that's a lowest common denominator issue. Perhaps compare the md5sum of the original and bail if it's not the expected number? Any time a file changes, the file we replace it with in the spkg-install should probably change as well. Do our prerequisites include some checksumming or hashing utility? that's an interesting idea. On the linux side usually distro do checksums on packages so it has to be a part of the base system if you want to update. It's probably the case on most other platform in one way or another. That wouldn't have taken care of Dave's original problem in any case, which was double copying the same file. Which I stupidly parroted in Gentoo. Well, both people had computed a checksum of the original file, and only overwrite that original checksum, the second apply would have failed, since the file would already have been modified. I would not worry about the fact you have boobed in Gentoo. The first patch added a SunOS-x86 target. The second patch obliterated that Solaris one, so it will be no loss to you in Gentoo. Francois -- To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URL: http://www.sagemath.org
Re: [sage-devel] Re: Patches overwriting patches in singular
On 06/30/10 12:54 AM, Tim Daly wrote: I'm surprised you don't use patch. Mercurial can generate patches. That would only be ok at the point Mercurial is built, so might be tricky. GNU patch is only 200 kB of source code. If we added 200 KB and removed all the duplicate files (leaving only patches), we would end up saving a lot of disk space! A week or so ago I made a couple of minor changes in a large python file. Those few bytes probably added more than 200 KB -- To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URL: http://www.sagemath.org
Re: [sage-devel] Re: Patches overwriting patches in singular
I'm surprised you don't use patch. Mercurial can generate patches. François Bissey wrote: On Jun 29, 4:13 pm, François Bissey wrote: sage doesn't assume that the patch command is installed but rely on cp being there. That's why patch aren't used. I agree not ideal but that's a lowest common denominator issue. Perhaps compare the md5sum of the original and bail if it's not the expected number? Any time a file changes, the file we replace it with in the spkg-install should probably change as well. Do our prerequisites include some checksumming or hashing utility? that's an interesting idea. On the linux side usually distro do checksums on packages so it has to be a part of the base system if you want to update. It's probably the case on most other platform in one way or another. That wouldn't have taken care of Dave's original problem in any case, which was double copying the same file. Which I stupidly parroted in Gentoo. Francois -- To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URL: http://www.sagemath.org
Re: [sage-devel] Re: Patches overwriting patches in singular
> On Jun 29, 4:13 pm, François Bissey wrote: > > sage doesn't assume that the patch command is installed but rely on cp > > being there. That's why patch aren't used. > > I agree not ideal but that's a lowest common denominator issue. > > Perhaps compare the md5sum of the original and bail if it's not the > expected number? Any time a file changes, the file we replace it with > in the spkg-install should probably change as well. Do our > prerequisites include some checksumming or hashing utility? that's an interesting idea. On the linux side usually distro do checksums on packages so it has to be a part of the base system if you want to update. It's probably the case on most other platform in one way or another. That wouldn't have taken care of Dave's original problem in any case, which was double copying the same file. Which I stupidly parroted in Gentoo. Francois -- To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URL: http://www.sagemath.org
[sage-devel] Re: Patches overwriting patches in singular
On Jun 29, 4:13 pm, François Bissey wrote: > sage doesn't assume that the patch command is installed but rely on cp being > there. That's why patch aren't used. > I agree not ideal but that's a lowest common denominator issue. Perhaps compare the md5sum of the original and bail if it's not the expected number? Any time a file changes, the file we replace it with in the spkg-install should probably change as well. Do our prerequisites include some checksumming or hashing utility? -- To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URL: http://www.sagemath.org
