Hi,
On Wed, Jul 05, 2017 at 07:47:25PM -0700, Travis Scrimshaw wrote:
> I just realized that we do not have chomp included anymore on the list
> of optional packages. Moreover, it is now broken!
>
> This is really the last of the old-style packages I would like to see
> kept. Although really we
There is also Simon's package about group cohomology, with an upgrade still in
the works IIRC.
--
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
There is also "huge" package polytopes_db_4d which I do care about, but it
is hard to find in listings, and given its 8GB size I don't download again
and again but rather install locally.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-devel" group.
To
I just realized that we do not have chomp included anymore on the list of
optional packages. Moreover, it is now broken!
This is really the last of the old-style packages I would like to see kept.
Although really we should try and upgrade it...but maybe in the short-term,
we can just make it
On 2017-07-05 14:50, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
> TL;DR: should we drop support for old-style .spkg packages completely in
> Sage?
Will this mean that they stop working immediately or they will only be
broken if certain parts in SageMath are altered by some (future)
ticket/fix etc.?
--
You received
Hi,
On Wed, Jul 05, 2017 at 02:50:53PM +0200, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
> TL;DR: should we drop support for old-style .spkg packages completely in
> Sage?
+1 (it could have been done a while ago).
The wiki page below was opened two years ago, and the few remaining
unclassified packages do not seem
TL;DR: should we drop support for old-style .spkg packages completely in
Sage?
Old-style packages are a relic from the old Sage development model from
Sage versions < 6.0. They are packages containing the sources and
metadata in one .spkg archive. New-style packages, with metadata in the
