On 2015-08-18 22:16, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
- move the current low-level `sage -i` to, say, `sage -p` (which
automatically includes `sage -p -c -f` and remains consistent with
`sage -b` and `sage --docbuild`, so that we keep all the benefits of
(B)). Replace `sage -i` with `sage -p` in `s
On 2015-08-18 21:16, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
Good for me, since it is very close to my proposal (C)
I meant (B) here (add an option -m to install with dependencies)
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and
On 2015-08-18 12:00, Thierry wrote:
Actually, i do not see why (A) involves more complexity than (B).
1. We need to define how the various options to -i can be combined, in
particular the -f option is tricky.
2. The "sage -i" command would need to do two completely unrelated
things: act as high
On Monday, 17 August 2015 14:29:01 UTC-7, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
>
> On 2015-08-17 19:12, kcrisman wrote:
> > How many packages currently have such (additional) dependencies now as
> > opposed to several years ago?
> Currently, the only packages which depend on a package which is not
> standar
Hi,
thanks Jeroen for raising this question. Note that `sage -i` appears both
in `sage -h` and `sage -advanced`, which might explain why its status is
not well defined (user interface vs atomic dev tool). So, the question is
about splitting the two features.
>From the user point of view, (A) is d
On 2015-08-17 19:00, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
(A) change "sage -i PKG" to also install dependencies (adding some
option --no-dependencies to keep the old behaviour)
+1
Daniel
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from thi
> My current vote (although I keep changing my mind):
>
> - document "make pkg" to install packages, not "sage -i pkg"
How do you propose we update the doc for that? Sage is filled with
exceptions which say "type sage -i " in ordert to install the
pacakge you need. We cannot just say "type make ",
On Monday, August 17, 2015 at 2:34:19 PM UTC-7, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
>
> On 2015-08-17 19:01, William Stein wrote:
> > Let's at least establish what people are likely to think "sage -i"
> > already is (after 10+ years of Sage).
>
I guess this is one of the questions: should Sage users be enc
On 2015-08-17 19:01, William Stein wrote:
Let's at least establish what people are likely to think "sage -i"
already is (after 10+ years of Sage).
Personally, I see it as a low-level command, analogous to other
low-level commands like ./sage -b and ./sage --docbuild.
-i [packages] --
On 2015-08-17 19:12, kcrisman wrote:
How many packages currently have such (additional) dependencies now as
opposed to several years ago?
Currently, the only packages which depend on a package which is not
standard are:
* python_igraph depending on igraph
* qepcad depending on saclib
By a st
How many packages currently have such (additional) dependencies now as
opposed to several years ago? I only expect it to install one package at a
time but I also can't remember installing a lot of packages that had
dependencies that weren't standard packages. Maybe we're separating out
things
On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 10:48 AM, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
> On 2015-08-17 18:35, William Stein wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 10:00 AM, Jeroen Demeyer
>> wrote:
>> [...]
>>>
>>> What would you like?
>>
>>
>> What does every other package manager do?
>
>
> I don't think that's relevant. The qu
On 2015-08-17 18:35, William Stein wrote:
On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 10:00 AM, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
[...]
What would you like?
What does every other package manager do?
I don't think that's relevant. The question is not whether or not it
should be possible to install packages with dependenci
On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 10:00 AM, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
[...]
> What would you like?
What does every other package manager do? (I am being somewhat
rhetorical because I think I know the answer.) Maybe we should do
what *everybody* else does in this case, to minimize surprise and
confusion.
This question is because of discussion at #18859.
The current behaviour of "sage -i PKG" is to install package PKG (if the
latest version of that package is not already installed), without
looking at the dependencies of PKG.
Now what should the recommended user interface be for installing a
15 matches
Mail list logo
