William Stein wrote: >>> 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. > > -- William
I can see your point about internal versions, but you I think what might be a compromise, is I remove your Sage Works! and replace it with the version number reported. It is then only a message, and does not affect the distribution in any way, but is a bit more informative than just 'Sage works'. It easy to extract the source for 4.2, upgrade it to 4.2.1, whilst the directory still says 4.2. Then someone forgets and creates a binary called 4.2, when in fact it is 4.2.1. Perhaps outputting the full text of version() at the top, instead of "Sage work!", might be useful. What are your thoughts on that? Dave -- 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
