William Stein wrote: > > On 7/17/07, Georges Khaznadar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Hello, I would like to make a Debian package of Sage. >> >> I recently attended a talk of Professor Tsai who uses it in Taiwan, and >> it was pretty convincing. >> >> Apparently, Sage depends on other software which should be packaged >> separately, according to the "Debian way". With the source packages, the >> dependencies were solved by including the other software's sources in >> the tree. I already noticed such habits in other upstrean packages I >> have "debianised" recently. >> >> Please have you any hint of interesting informations about the relations >> between the development of Sage and the other packages it depends on? > > Creating a .deb for SAGE has been discussed a few times on sage-devel, > so there is definitely strong interest in doing it. Probably people have > attempted it 4 times now, but everybody has failed, except Bobby Moretti > one year ago (who unfortunately didn't maintain what he did). If you want > to succeed at making a SAGE .deb, here is what you'll likely do: > > (1) Create a monolothic .deb, which installs everything SAGE currently > distributes in /opt/sage/, along with a run script /usr/bin/sage. > Basically > this involves modifying the make file in the SAGE source > distribution so that it works with the Debian packaging tools. Bobby > (who I've cc'd), might be kind enough to give you further tips. >
I looked into (1) (also for rpm) a while ago and came up with pkgwrite - see http://ffem.org/daveb/pkgwrite/ - this is a perl script that creates debs or rpms from the same config file. I mostly lurk on sage-devel these days because work barely leaves me time to play around with sage :( While solution (1) is against the "Debian Way" (2) is next to impossible from a debugging standpoint, i.e. which version of libSingular, g++ and clisp are you using? I don't think anybody intends to get Sage into the official Debian distribution because maintaining a stable branch release has some rather unpleasant limitations. You can't just bump up to the current stable release on a whim, so I think getting Sage into Ubuntu is a much more reachable goal. It also seems that Ubuntu is getting a lot more mindshare in the *desktop* these days (compared to Debian unstable). Cheers, Michael > (2) Only after having completely mastering (1), move on to considering > breaking up SAGE into smaller packages and installing into the standard > Debian environment. > > Most people are extremely reluctant to do (1), because it violates the > "Debian way". > It is however, *definitely* the right first thing to do, and has > substantial > benefits over the tarball/source distribution we are currently > distributing, > so it is well worth doing. > > Note that in (1), creating the .deb package > should be so easy that any user with SAGE installed from source and > all the appropriate > Debian package tools should be able to just type "sage -pkg_deb foo.deb" > and get a Debian package. This ease is critical for long term > maintainability. > > Doing (2) is probably way way too much work for anybody who couldn't > easily > do (1), which is another argument for doing (1) first. Anybody who could > do (2) > could easily do (1), and doing (1) would actually work and have great > benefit > to SAGE users; most typical mathematicians wouldn't > notice any difference between (1) and (2), even though (2) is vastly more > difficult. > > Thanks for any help!! > > -- William > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URLs: http://sage.scipy.org/sage/ and http://modular.math.washington.edu/sage/ -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
