On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 3:49 AM, Peter Jeremy wrote:
> On 2010-Mar-29 16:08:48 -0700, William Stein wrote:
>>Let's make some system-wide Python a prerequisite. Full stop.
>
> It's not quite 1st April even here.
This is not an April fools joke.
>
> I could understand Python being a prerequisite
On 2010-Mar-29 16:08:48 -0700, William Stein wrote:
>Let's make some system-wide Python a prerequisite. Full stop.
It's not quite 1st April even here.
I could understand Python being a prerequisite if Sage was going to
use it at runtime but requiring it to be present solely to build
another cop
As a partial answer to the original question, in Sage one can do
sage: is_package_installed('python')
True
On Mar 30, 2010, at 10:02 AM, William Stein wrote:
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 8:04 AM, Simon King
wrote:
Hi Dave,
On Mar 30, 2:50 pm, David Kirkby wrote:
...
I can see there might be
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 8:04 AM, Simon King wrote:
> Hi Dave,
>
> On Mar 30, 2:50 pm, David Kirkby wrote:
>> ...
>> I can see there might be even more Solaris issues!
>>
>> Since python 3 is not backward compatible with python 2, there could
>> be even more problems in future.
>
> Probably one co
Hi Dave,
On Mar 30, 2:50 pm, David Kirkby wrote:
> ...
> I can see there might be even more Solaris issues!
>
> Since python 3 is not backward compatible with python 2, there could
> be even more problems in future.
Probably one could write a simple Python script that is both
executable in Pytho
On 30 March 2010 14:00, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
> Dave,
>
> On Mar 30, 3:21 am, "Dr. David Kirkby"
> wrote:
> [...]
>> What I do find odd is to make
>> Python a prerequisite, then also include the python sources too. That
>> means people are going to need to have two copies of python.
>
> most like
Dave,
On Mar 30, 3:21 am, "Dr. David Kirkby"
wrote:
[...]
> What I do find odd is to make
> Python a prerequisite, then also include the python sources too. That
> means people are going to need to have two copies of python.
most likely, two different versions.
E.g. Debian stable does not have P
On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 4:05 PM, Dr. David Kirkby
wrote:
> Nils Bruin wrote:
>>
>> On Mar 28, 9:10 pm, William Stein wrote:
>>
>>> I'm for allowing the use of Python in the Sage build system.
>>
>> It seems to me that with a little care one could have python used in
>> some parts of the build sys
Nils Bruin wrote:
On Mar 28, 9:10 pm, William Stein wrote:
I'm for allowing the use of Python in the Sage build system.
It seems to me that with a little care one could have python used in
some parts of the build system and avoid declaring python a
prerequisite for python.
Yes, I think so
On Mar 28, 9:10 pm, William Stein wrote:
> I'm for allowing the use of Python in the Sage build system.
It seems to me that with a little care one could have python used in
some parts of the build system and avoid declaring python a
prerequisite for python.
If a package "requires" another spkg,
On Mar 29, 8:01 pm, "Georg S. Weber"
wrote:
> > Python is not a sledgehammer; it is an elegant tool, which can be used
> > to produces beautiful readable maintainable and portable code.
>
> > > Anyway, it's your decision.
>
> > I'm for allowing the use of Python in the Sage build system.
>
> >
>
> Python is not a sledgehammer; it is an elegant tool, which can be used
> to produces beautiful readable maintainable and portable code.
>
> > Anyway, it's your decision.
>
> I'm for allowing the use of Python in the Sage build system.
>
> -- William
Under $SAGRE_ROOT/local/bin/, several of th
On Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 6:50 PM, Dr. David Kirkby
wrote:
> It is true that the system needs an install of python, but there may not be
> one present. I would assume some of the cut-down distributions of Linux do
> not include python. Does Cygwin install it by default?
Building Sage on Cygwin -- w
William Stein wrote:
On Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 3:31 PM, Dr. David Kirkby
wrote:
William Stein wrote:
Regarding the implementation of that script, you could maybe check for
ls returning an error (or whatever) as above. However, better
would be to write something in Python, e.g.,
#!/usr/bin/env
On Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 4:02 PM, Simon King wrote:
> Hi David,
>
> On 29 Mrz., 00:31, "Dr. David Kirkby" wrote:
>> ...
>> That's not going to work until python is installed. Why not make it a shell
>> script instead - it would work before python is built, irrespective of
>> whether
>> someone ha
Hi David,
On 29 Mrz., 00:31, "Dr. David Kirkby" wrote:
> ...
> That's not going to work until python is installed. Why not make it a shell
> script instead - it would work before python is built, irrespective of whether
> someone has python installed on their machine.
For the application that I
On Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 3:31 PM, Dr. David Kirkby
wrote:
> William Stein wrote:
>
>> Regarding the implementation of that script, you could maybe check for
>> ls returning an error (or whatever) as above. However, better
>> would be to write something in Python, e.g.,
>>
>> #!/usr/bin/env python
William Stein wrote:
Regarding the implementation of that script, you could maybe check for
ls returning an error (or whatever) as above. However, better
would be to write something in Python, e.g.,
#!/usr/bin/env python
import os
# do something with os.listdir()
---
By factoring out this
On Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 12:33 PM, Simon King wrote:
> Hi William!
>
> On 28 Mrz., 19:55, William Stein wrote:
>> ...
>> No. newest_version is irrelevant. One should look at spk/installed/
>
> So, one would test whether
> ls spkg/installed/database_gap*
> results in an error?
Hmm. I think the
Hi William!
On 28 Mrz., 19:55, William Stein wrote:
> ...
> No. newest_version is irrelevant. One should look at spk/installed/
So, one would test whether
ls spkg/installed/database_gap*
results in an error?
Cheers,
Simon
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.
20 matches
Mail list logo
