>> Yes, I know there is some old python. So that's a show stopper. > > The Sage community had this discussion before and the answer to any > proposed change is "NO". We want > > * KISS > * something that only requires a shell to work > * something that runs on OSX, Linux, Solaris, Cygwin and in the > future native Winows > > I have just described the empty set for if you take Sage's build > system out of the equation.
Thanks for the information. > >> Ideally, I would like to bootstrap like Sage, from nothing. E.g. the >> user would download a small tarball, that would contain basically just >> a python based package manager + python itself (if it's not installed >> on the system). And then he could install and remove any packages he >> wants, they would download & install into ~/.cache or something. So it >> would work like a source distribution, that runs everywhere. The >> advantage is that libraries like numpy, lapack, blas, etc. would get >> installed only once and all the upgrades would just download a small >> thing. The Sage current approach is to download and compile everything all >> over again. > > This is wrong, you can upgrade from release to release. And you can > drop spkgs on any webserver and set some env variable and Sage will > pull from it and get spkg updates. Ah, that's cool. I'll do that. But I meant more for users who install it on their computers --- so I'll submit my packages into experimental, I guess that's the way. >> But I don't want to start anything new, so I am just curious about >> Sage plans in the future about this. Basically, what I need from Sage >> is atlas, lapack, numpy, scipy, python and then the possibility to >> install all my additional packages. > > You want to make this stand alone? Take a look at local/bin. sage/local/bin? Or /usr/loca/bin? > >> Another thing --- I'd like to create some repository with my packages, >> so that people can just "sage -i" install them, without having to >> first wget all the spkg and install them manually. So I thought I >> would get my packages to sage experimental, but is there any procedure >> for that? > > Yes, submit them for inclusion. But you should add dependency checks > inside the spkg so things do not blow up. Ok, I will, when I polish them more. > >> I know that all of this is reinventing the wheel and basically doing >> what linux distributions are doing, but Sage imho is a distribution -- >> a source distribution that runs everywhere and actually compiles --- >> well, it's true that each time I tried to compile sage on some cluster >> (2x so far), it failed :), but I think I am an exception, since I used >> some older g++, or some other stuff was broken. > > Well, in once case you used a truly screwed up distribution and the Yes, but I didn't have root access on that boxes. > bugs got fixed with your help. What do you expect from 5,000,000 lines > of code? It works much more reliable than any other project I have > ever build from sources in that size range. Exactly, that's why I want to use Sage and not something else, because it's the best. Ondrej --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
