On Dec 30, 2007 6:14 PM, Ondrej Certik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Dec 30, 2007 11:58 PM, Francois <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Dec 31, 1:51 am, "Ondrej Certik" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > Disclaimer: I am a Debian user, on the way of becoming a Debian Developer > > > > > > I agree with Michael, to keep it simple stupid, as it is now. Maybe with > > > my > > > a simple improvements I suggested here: > > > > > > http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel/browse_thread/thread/6b9684... > > > > > > Nice thing about this is that there is no database, nothing. Just > > > plain files, that > > > can be fixed by hand. > > > > > > How would portage improve this? > > > > Note I initially posted this privately to Ondrej with a disclaimer > > about not starting > > rant wars but he encouraged me to post it list-wide. > > Yes, some Sage developers like Michael love flamebates. :) > > > > Disclaimer: I am a Gentoo user which should really become the > > maintainer > > of several packages :) [real life commitment permitting] > > > > I am just feeling that spkg is re-inventing/has re-invented the wheel. > > On the other hand full blown portage is certainly too bloated - did I > > mention > > anything about subsets of portage? > > I think there should be a kind of portage-redux for stuff that are not > > full fledged > > Linux meta-distribution. Modular xorg comes to mind as something that > > has pretty > > much become a distribution and could use such system. Portage-redux > > definitely > > doesn't belong to this list. > > > > Since my understanding is that you can actually use dpkg to compile > > debian from > > source it could probably be applied there as well. > > > > The only improvement that I can see would be an ease of integration in > > Gentoo > > which is a bit too Gentoo-centric to be of any real benefit to anyone > > else. More > > discipline in the packaging is probably what is most needed at the > > moment. And > > you can package stuff as badly in ebuilds than you can in spkgs so > > that wouldn't > > really enforce discipline. So pragmatically none. > > I thought the same at the beginning that Sage is just reinventing the wheel > (especially when Sage people don't like reinventing the wheel:), but > I don't think there is any other way. The requirements are: > > * keep it simple (plain config files, the less, the better) > * need to work everywhere where Sage works > > But you are right, that imho, Sage is becoming a distribution, for > mathematics software. > And a very convenient one. Imagine just writing your program, then > creating a spkg > and then being able to install it from source on linux, windows, > mac... You cannot > do that with a Gentoo or Debian package alone.
Well said! > > Ondrej > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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/ -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
