On 27 Aug., 10:05, Keshav Kini <keshav.k...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Saturday, August 27, 2011 2:22:11 PM UTC+8, leif wrote: > > > On 26 Aug., 07:51, Keshav Kini <kesha...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > If by rebuilds you mean the forced reinstallation of a package version > > > that's already installed, I don't see what the problem is. > > > I meant e.g. installing new spkg foo by > > > * copying it to spkg/standard/ > > * applying necessary patches for the new foo spkg to the Sage library > > (and committing them) > > * running 'env SAGE_UPGRADING=yes make' to (re)build it and also all > > dependent packages, which includes the Sage library > > > (Note that there are situations where reinstalling / rebuilding the > > Sage library will fail badly -- eventually quite late -- without > > having some necessary patches applied, therefore "inconvenient", also > > preventing automatic testing. In addition, packages in turn depending > > on the Sage library won't get rebuilt in the first place in that > > case.) > > I guess I didn't give too much thought to other situations in which sage is > "upgraded", other than when you just type `sage -upgrade [url]` on the > command line. Shouldn't rebuilds ideally be semantically separated from > "upgrades"? Not that I have any idea what that entails in Sage...
Well, basically 'sage -upgrade ...' just grabs two separate files and all updated / newer spkgs from the server and then performs a rebuild (of the new spkgs and of all those that directly or indirectly depend on these). The mentioned procedure to "manually" install new spkgs and rebuild all dependent ones is an inofficial by-product of the effort to make upgrading more reliable (without artificial patch-level bumping and the need to do 'sage -ba-force') though, and [therefore] currently intentionally undocumented. ;-) I'm planning to add some 'make' targets for that, e.g. 'rebuild', such that one doesn't have to set weird environment variables. Then we can document it as an officially supported procedure. > Any relation to #10231 <http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/10231>? Yep, although I wasn't aware of that ticket (or at least forgot about it). The discussion on sage-release is a bit more recent, with a bunch of pros and cons. > > 'hg update -c' apparently ignores new files (not yet added, nor > > explicitly ignored). It only fails if there are outstanding changes to > > already tracked files. > > Yup, which I figured was a desirable behavior, per various people's > suggestions to not balk at unknown files lying around. Also IMO; John seemed to not like this idea. > ---- > Join us in #sagemath on irc.freenode.net <irc://irc.freenode.net/sagemath> ! "Be aware that you may need to wait a while for your answer (perhaps hours) as our channel is still new and gaining users." Statistics? :P -leif -- 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
