It pains me a bit to say yes, but I agree with your assessment of the
situation; it's needed only by the few (and the technically capable)
and is a lot of weight for something that looks to always be an
incomplete hack around not having OpenSSL on the system. Just make
sure that it's clearly docume
[X] Yes, remove them!
If this is possible, that would be a very good idea. Where's the
ticket, such that I can give it positive_review :-)
--
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
[X] Yes, remove them!
On 01/09/12 11:39, William Stein wrote:
> ... For people setting up a
> server who will user secure=True, they *should* get a properly signed
> certificate, so they are likely very sophisticated users willing to do
> some extra work (incidentally, I have never once in the h
Question: Whenever I rebuild Sage I find I have to install openssh
and the rebuild python, since otherwise mercurial does not work when
pull/pushing to a remote place. (I tihnk that this is stil the case
when on a machine with its own mercurial, not using Sage's mercurial,
though I cannot see how
Le 09/01/2012 17:39, William Stein a écrit :
Hi Sage-Devel,
PROPOSAL: I propose that we remove python_gnutls, gnutls, opencdk,
libgcrypt, and
libgpg_error from Sage-5.0. See below for details.
Removing the above 5 packages will save space, make Sage build more
quickly and easily, and make
Hi Sage-Devel,
PROPOSAL: I propose that we remove python_gnutls, gnutls, opencdk,
libgcrypt, and
libgpg_error from Sage-5.0. See below for details.
VOTE:
[ ] Yes, remove them!
[ ] No, we need them.
[ ] Woops -- you are confused and didn't realize that .
DETAILS:
The Sage no
