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
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
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 this
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 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 convenient
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
inside the
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/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:
IMHO:
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 would
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/, etc?
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
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).
-leif
On
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
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
versions
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 the
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, nor
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.
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.
*
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 more reliable
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
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 is
21 matches
Mail list logo
