On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 6:38 PM, Robert Bradshaw <rober...@math.washington.edu> wrote: >> This thread is mainly about Gonzalo's proposal that we target >> something like busybox (or my suggestion "python") instead of POSIX >> standard shell usage. Somehow it is amazingly difficult to keep this >> discussion on track! >> >> Definitely your 1-3 are definitely a good idea though... it's hard to >> argue with them. > > Ah, I got my threads crossed. I't still a bit unclear, are we talking > about the scripts in sage/local/bin, or install scripts for the > various packages, or both?
I think we are talking about both. > I like the idea of moving towards using Python as the scripting/build > coordinating language, but that might make using non-standard > compliers and/or cross compiling even more difficult. Why? I can only imagine it making things easier since we can structure are code more cleanly and factor out common things. Anyways, one can always do "os.system(...)" so shell capabilities are a subset of Python. This isn't a purely theoretical discussion, since the native Windows porting work of Sage has a Python-based build system already. I'm not arguing for changing anything in the Sage build system right now. I'm just suggesting we should keep an open mind, so when some incredible person shows up at a SAge days (say) who is willing to dive in and do some amazing 1-month coding sprint to improve the build system substantially -- say for a major Sage release like 5.0 -- we are ready. 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
