William Stein wrote: > 2009/11/14 Dr. David Kirkby <david.kir...@onetel.net>:
>> I assume 'experimental' are less stable than 'optional'. IMHO, the user >> downloading the file should be made aware it is experimental, and so one way >> to >> do that would be to have an option like >> >> sage --install-experimental some_possibly_broken_package >> > > Yes, that's a very good idea. Alternatively, we could do the > following in order to maintain the same API and not add yet another > option to the Sage command: > > $ sage -i package_name > The package package_name is experimental and may cause all matter of > harm, not work, etc. Are you sure you want to proceed [yes or no]? > > The above message would happen if package_name is experimental and a > certain environment variable isn't set. (I want the ability to > non-interactively try to install all experimental packages.) This > would better mirror what happens when one does "sage -upgrade". > > -- William That sounds fine. As you say, there needs to be a way to do a non-iterative install, but your solution seems to combine that, along with a warning. I do not know if there would a be a way to list the experimental packages separately, when you list optional packages installed. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
