Peter Jeremy wrote:
On 2010-Mar-11 12:23:27 +0000, "Dr. David Kirkby" <david.kir...@onetel.net>
wrote:
"This package exists mainly because it's very easy to build, and it removes a
SAGE dependency.
I don't like all these "it's easy and quick to build" packages. They
have a nasty tendency to breed and lots of "quick & easy" packages
wind up making Sage even bigger and more bloated. yacc/bison is
primarily a build-time dependency (the only runtime bit that bison
potentially needs are the NLS translation files for its runtime
errors).
bison and flex are both optional, so do not add to the bulk. But I can't really
see the point having them myself, for the following reasons.
1) Neither bison or flex are needed to build Sage - at least not on Solaris, and
I doubt they would be needed on any operating system.
2) Assuming that yacc (GNU name bison) or lex (GNU name flex) were needed to
build Sage, how the hell would anyone install these 'optional' packages? They
would need to have Sage installed to install the experimental packages.
I personally think the bison and flex packages are just clutter and best removed
from experimental. Unless Sage wants to become a package manager like 'apt-get',
'rpm' to download and install any software one wants!
Seriously, what possible use is there in having these experimental packages? I
can't think of one.
I'd be tempted to create a trac ticket for this, though I wont bother unless
there is a consensus that they are useless clutter.
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
