> >> I suggested 'nose' was added a long time ago > > >>http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel/browse_thread/thread/928632... > > >> the only person to reply (Robert Bradshaw) disagreed. > > I think there's a distinction between an spkg that people might find > useful to use with Sage, and an spkg that's actually used in in Sage. > For the former, if easy_install "just works," than it's not worth us > creating and maintaining a separate spkg, but for the latter, we > should ship it. > > The fact that an upstream package use nose in its tests did not seem > like enough of a justification to create a whole new spkg, but if we > want to write Sage tests with nose than I have no objection. I > certainly think that there's a diminishing return on doctests once you > reach a certain point (which we're probably not at yet).
I think the reason for this is to make it really easy to run spkg- check on a number of spkgs. Like Numpy and Scipy. So if nose were available in the spkg framework, this would be nice. That said, maybe 'easy_install' is really as easy as ./sage -i nose from the internet, in which case I suppose one could have an spkg- check that relied on the internet... but that wouldn't be ideal, I think. - kcrisman -- 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
