On Saturday, February 17, 2024 at 1:13:33 PM UTC-6 Dima Pasechnik wrote: My proposal is in fact aimed at reducing the number of pinned Sage dependecies, drastically.
Because most of them are either dependencies of Jupyterlab, or of Sphinx, or of Python build system, and none of the them should be Sage's concern to package, with all their dependencies. In my experience, it's particularly important to pin build dependencies. Most of the "out of the blue" CI failures we've seen with "snappy" have been caused by new versions of build dependencies, especially Cython. (I see that Cython was also one of the motivations for the "conda-lock" scheme of https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/35986 ) If you itch to pack the said dependencies, please do it in a separate repo/PyPI package, which can be consumed by sagelib to get the desired pinned dependencies (and test all this in the existing CI, why not?) But stop tying them up with sagelib - which in effect forces people interested in sagelib to slave away on packaging 300 dependencies, most of which aren't even tested by CI in any way, besides building. It seems to me that the "wheel" type Sage packages, each of which is primarily just the version number of a file on PyPI and its hash, is like a "requirements.txt" file (or "conda-lock" file, for that matter) spread over multiple directories. Personally, I don't view that as packaging a dependency, but rather saving some metadata to aid reliability/reproducibility. Best, Nathan -- 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/c1d9fe0f-c196-4fe3-b11f-2d8673f782a7n%40googlegroups.com.
