On Dec 5, 2009, at 12:54 AM, William Stein wrote: > 2009/12/4 Robert Bradshaw <rober...@math.washington.edu>: >> On Dec 4, 2009, at 2:27 PM, Dr. David Kirkby wrote: >> >>> It would appear when creating a binary for Sage, one would normally >>> put >>> something like >>> >>> sage -bdist 4.1.2-Solaris >>> >>> or similar to create a binary for Solaris of version 4.1.2 of Sage. >>> >>> It would be relatively easy to get Sage to report the version >>> number, so one >>> does not have to specify that. I'd suggest replacing the >>> >>> sage -c "print Sage Works" >>> >>> with something that prints the version number, then use that in the >>> script. >>> >>> Not only does it save typing 5 characters, but it is more foolproof, >>> as one >>> can't accidentally create a binary with the wrong version number. >>> >>> Comments? >> >> +1 > > -1 > > One drawback is that it makes the input to sdist inconsistent with the > input to bdist, e.g., > > sage -sdist 4.1.2-solaris > sage -bdist solaris > > The second drawback is that one might want to make a binary > distribution, and not label it with a version number, or label it with > a version that properly reflects what you've added to it. E.g.,: > > (a) I download sage-4.1.2. > (b) I change a bunch of crap. > (c) I want to make a binary to distribute to my friends, so I do > this: > sage -bdist 4.1.2mod-solaris > > Or, I'm doing something internally and do > > sage -bdist internal_version > > By forcing the version number at the front, you're making "sage > -bdist" significantly less flexible and breaking a nice symmetry > between bdist and sdist.
Those are all good points. What if the version flag is optional, in which case it's generated automatically (detecting the OS as well, or failing)? - Robert -- 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
