On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 11:11 AM, mabshoff <mabsh...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > > > On Dec 22, 11:05 am, "William Stein" <wst...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 10:42 AM, mabshoff <mabsh...@googlemail.com> wrote: >> >> > On Dec 22, 8:14 am, "William Stein" <wst...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > <SNIP> >> >> >> Michael A. or anybody else -- does anybody know if the exact spkg >> >> format is written down anywhere. I definitely couldn't find it with >> >> 10 minutes of searching on the wiki, etc., and nobody responded to the >> >> above email with a link. >> >> >> William >> >> > I am not aware of any documentation, but >> >> > src/ -- *vanilla* upstream >> > SPKG.txt -- describes the spkg in wiki format, each new revision >> > needs an updated changelog entry or an automatic "needs work" from my >> > end at review time >> > spkg-install -- the install script >> > spkg-check -- runs the test suite - this is somewhat optional since >> > not all spkgs have test suites >> > patches -- for patches against upstream. Each file >> > foo.extension needs to have a diff against the original file, i.e. >> > foo.extension.patch for easy rebases against new upstream >> >> > Everything but src must be under revision control - unclean repo in >> > the spkg leads to automatic "needs work" from my end at review time >> >> Which must be very frustrating for new developers, given that the above >> exists >> only in our heads! > > Yes, but reviews I do in that area contain detailed points which need > to be fixed.
Making all spkg reviews have to be done by you since you're the only one who knows the format is bad for the busfactor of sage. >> > Please do not stuff this info randomly into the wiki somewhere, but >> > let's add this properly to the development manual in the right spot. >> >> At a minimum, it goes in the wiki. That was the first place I looked, >> via the nice wiki search, and I would have easily found the above in >> seconds were it in the wiki. I would likely never find it in the >> developers manual. > > Well, documentation in the wiki gets merged into the Developer's > manual and then things start to diverge. And I really dislike that. I used to think that was an intrinsic problem with wiki's but now I'm not so sure, given how good the Ubuntu wiki's are for sysadmin stuff, and of course wikipedia itself is a great example of an organized wiki. > What I also very dislike is the more or less random way things are > structured in the wiki, i.e. while de-crapping the wiki by removing > Spam I have found all kind of pages I didn't know existed. Once we > have the ReST transition this week we will finally have persistent > URLs for the sections in the reference manual, so adding something in > the wiki that points to the reference manual is probably the best > solution IMHO. How about put info in the wiki, then when it is superceeded by the developers manual, post a link to that. William --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sage-devel-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URLs: http://www.sagemath.org -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
