> > Is the problem you are solving that with the current situation,
> > you and sage-support) get too many silly build questions?
> Yes.
If it's easier to support a full install from sources from scratch
than to support planned upgrades (we're not talking about release
candidates here), it only demonstrates a lack of maturity of the
distribution.
Sage is more like a distribution than a monolithic program you want to
compare with (vmware, Parallel, etc)
Can you ever imagine e.g. Debian telling to install Etch from scratch
rather than supporting upgrade from Sarge to Etch??
> However, it is only to be used by people that really know something about
> building Sage and some of the issues that inevitably arise in building
> package from source, etc.
Do you mean you're not against the -upgrade option but against
building from sources by normal users? Sorry but Sage simply didn't
work with the pre-compiled bins and I had no choice but building from
sources and I guess many people are in that case.
Only providing binaries in all major distributions can solve properly
this problem and still comparing with vmware: you've to build the
vmware drivers from scratch too if you're not using one of the kernels
they foresee.
> > In any case, I vote to not make the command longer
> > ("-upgrade" -> "-devel_upgrade" but shorter ("-upgrade" -> "-u"),
> > because I am lazy:-).
I vote for supporting both "--upgrade" and "-u" because "-
upgrade" (with one -) is against UNIX style options since decades :-)
Phil
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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://www.sagemath.org
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
