I've made a proof-of-concept conversion of the Sage packaging system to
hashdist:
https://github.com/vbraun/sagestack
Obviously its not working, but you can build third-party packages and maybe
play around with hashdist.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
PS: I just remembered that this is using file globs, so you need hashdist
from this branch: https://github.com/vbraun/hashdist/tree/files_glob.
Though it should be merged upstream soon.
On Saturday, June 21, 2014 11:22:26 PM UTC+1, Volker Braun wrote:
I've made a proof-of-concept conversion
Wow, this is really impressive work!
A
On Sat, Jun 21, 2014 at 7:42 PM, Volker Braun vbraun.n...@gmail.com wrote:
PS: I just remembered that this is using file globs, so you need hashdist
from this branch: https://github.com/vbraun/hashdist/tree/files_glob.
Though it should be merged
Also, I just merged Volker's pull request in to # master. You shouldn't
need to use his hashdist branch.
A
On Sat, Jun 21, 2014 at 7:47 PM, Aron Ahmadia a...@ahmadia.net wrote:
Wow, this is really impressive work!
A
On Sat, Jun 21, 2014 at 7:42 PM, Volker Braun vbraun.n...@gmail.com
I've spent some time looking at hashdist which is probably the closest to
what we need, but I don't think its the way to go for us right now. First,
Sage depends on the LD_LIBRARY_PATH hack on too many places. Before that is
fixed its hard to do anything with a real package management system.
Hi Volker,
Thanks for considering hashdist. Few comments:
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 8:33 AM, Volker Braun vbraun.n...@gmail.com wrote:
I've spent some time looking at hashdist which is probably the closest to
what we need, but I don't think its the way to go for us right now. First,
Sage
On Tuesday, June 17, 2014 4:33:24 PM UTC+2, Volker Braun wrote:
I've spent some time looking at hashdist which is probably the closest to
what we need, but I don't think its the way to go for us right now. First,
Sage depends on the LD_LIBRARY_PATH hack on too many places. Before that is
Just a general +1 to Dag and Ondrej's comments.
I should take the blame (and responsibility) for places where documentation
or testing is weak. hashdist itself has quite good coverage in its core,
and we've been running nightly builds of the Proteus stack on a number of
operating systems with it
Good idea, whats a good time?
I'll be online today at 23:00 BST UTC = 22:00 UTC = 15:00PDT.
https://plus.google.com/events/cff6ldm40v1skgq5eeslmhg4j5g
On Tuesday, June 17, 2014 4:30:18 PM UTC+1, dagss wrote:
If you are interested in cooperating perhaps the quickest way to move
forward is
Since nobody showed up, maybe you can suggest when? Do you have time during
the week?
cc to hashdist list in case somebody hasn't heard of this thread yet ;-)
On Tuesday, June 17, 2014 5:25:23 PM UTC+1, Volker Braun wrote:
Good idea, whats a good time?
I'll be online today at 23:00 BST
I was available 55mn in but just the two of us wouldn't have done much without
someone from hashdist.
I would have liked to be present because I several interests in this.
Next time tomorrow is not possible for me as I will be in a meeting.
But generally that kind of time means morning in my time
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 4:33 PM, François Bissey
francois.bis...@canterbury.ac.nz wrote:
I was available 55mn in but just the two of us wouldn't have done much without
someone from hashdist.
I would have liked to be present because I several interests in this.
Next time tomorrow is not
Volker Braun wrote:
This is a RFC for new packaging system for sage-the-distribution. I've
already talked about this with a few of you at the last sage days, but
finally it managed to do something about it. The goal is to be:
* Git-aware: use SHA1 hashes instead of timestamps for dependency
On Sunday, June 15, 2014 10:59:57 PM UTC+1, leif wrote:
* Git-aware: use SHA1 hashes instead of timestamps for dependency
calculations
? Hashs of what exactly? Modification / installation time of course
matters...
No, modification times precisely does not matter. Git does not
On Sun, 15 Jun 2014 15:29:58 Volker Braun wrote:
On Sunday, June 15, 2014 10:59:57 PM UTC+1, leif wrote:
* Git-aware: use SHA1 hashes instead of timestamps for dependency
calculations
? Hashs of what exactly? Modification / installation time of course
matters...
No, modification
So how about naming them compile/hard/soft/test, is that clearer?
I don't think we need separate (only) run-time dependencies...
--
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,
16 matches
Mail list logo
