In my mind it could make sense for there to be a sagemath-minimal package which from a user perspective represents a "minimal installation of Sage" in comparison to say a package called sagemath-full.
sagemath-standard is your sagemath-full. I think distribution packages in the current design are "building blocks", each of them contains a minimal subset of the sage library and dependencies *that make the distribution package work*. For example, sagemath-combinat is supposed to contain combinatorics portion of the sage library but deciding specifically which files and dependencies to include depends on* what combinations make the distribution package work*. Matthias did this hard work. Hence the distribution packages in the current design were designed so from developers' point of view. A "building block" distribution package should be minimal in the sense that splitting it into two or more *meaningful* distribution packages* that work* is not possible*.* I don't know if the distribution packages in the current design achieved this or not. We may define "user" distribution packages combining some subset of the building blocks, from users' point of view. Here I think your sagemath-minimal distribution package makes sense. It may provide a "sage" with elementary mathematics that all advanced mathematics depend. Likewise, we may define "user" distribution package sagemath-number-theory, and so forth. To realize the "user" distribution packages, we should have all the "building block" distribution packages in sage first. -- 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/969b8ac3-e8a8-4fef-abc4-3acd5e2a1666n%40googlegroups.com.
