As I mentioned in the thread that motivated this one, it would be relevant to stablish if it is possible to move those packages from standard to pip, while still having a way to install sage without an internet connection.
If the effort is not too much, I think it would make sense to provide that alternative. El domingo, 11 de febrero de 2024 a las 21:34:51 UTC+1, Matthias Koeppe escribió: > On Sunday, February 11, 2024 at 12:26:41 PM UTC-8 Dima Pasechnik wrote: > > > On 11 February 2024 19:50:17 GMT, Matthias Koeppe <matthia...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >I think it's a bit too quick to already call a vote. I would suggest that > >you take the time to collect and link previous discussions on this topic, > >so that participants can review the known arguments, viewpoints, and > >requirements. > > > >Example (from my previous > >post): > https://groups.google.com/g/sage-devel/c/C7-ho1zvEYU/m/S2n8d5rOAgAJ > >(2016) > > I don't think arguments from 2016 are very relevant today, given how much > python packaging evolved since then. > > > In case it was not clear, I did not suggest to only look for discussions > from 2016 or earlier. > > And the state of Python packaging is only one aspect that is relevant. > > -- 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, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/84f991b2-8753-45e4-aab4-b7446bf7b357n%40googlegroups.com.
