Hi, in Femhub (http://femhub.org) I wrote a new buildsystem from scratch using Python, so far it's a simple Python script:
http://github.com/hpfem/femhub/blob/master/spkg/base/femhub-run and it is (so far) fully compatible with Sage in the sense that any Sage package (should) install in Femhub and any Femhub package should install in Sage. (The goals of the Python based buildsystem is to support dependencies, as well as make it easier to improve it and make changes to it.) Very common question that gets asked on our group meetings (probably 4 or 5 times already) is why we use SAGE_ROOT and SAGE_LOCAL in all our packages, and not something more project neutral, like SPKG_ROOT/SPKG_LOCAL. My answer to that is always: well, we want to stay compatible with Sage. Just like Ubuntu also uses the "debian" directory in every single Ubuntu package. Nevertheless, what is the opinion in the Sage community to the following proposal: 1) support SPKG_ROOT and SPKG_LOCAL in the Sage buildsystem (and would be equivalent to SAGE_LOCAL, SAGE_ROOT) 2) deprecate SAGE_ROOT/LOCAL, but keep it in the buildsystem, so that old packages still build I am myself +0 to that, it would fix some problems, it would create some new ones. But I would like to know what people think about this. Ondrej -- 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
