On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 8:53 AM, Ralf Hemmecke <r...@hemmecke.de> wrote: > >>> If the logic is that the only entry point to the local/bin scripts is >>> through the "sage" shell script then why would there be ever SAGE_ROOT >>> be unset (except in evil cases where someone removes it from the >>> environment)? >> >> That is definitely not the case. > > OK. But then I would suggest, that it should be. And thus open up a > discussion about the pros and cons. > >> The "sage -sh" command was a >> relatively recent addition to Sage, at least from my point of view. >> For most of my time working on Sage, when I wanted to setup the Sage >> environment variables, I typed >> >> . local/bin/sage-env > > But that is basically the same thing.
The whole point is that SAGE_ROOT is *not* set at that point, so this is not the same thing. > What I would like to see is: > Any script inside $SAGE_ROOT/local/bin can safely assume that sage-env > has already been sourced. > > If such a script recognises that there is something wrong with the > environment, then this should count as a bug. > > So there are three things > 1. "sage" should be the only entry point for any non-developer. > 2. $SAGE_ROOT/local/bin is not known to non-developers. > 3. Inside $SAGE_ROOT/local/bin scripts can assume a proper environment. I think this is a good suggestion. William --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to sage-devel-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URL: http://www.sagemath.org -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
