On Nov 5, 2011, at 18:02 , Burcin Erocal wrote: > On Sat, 5 Nov 2011 17:23:38 -0700 (PDT) > leif <not.rea...@online.de> wrote: > >> On 5 Nov., 21:24, "Justin C. Walker" <jus...@mac.com> wrote: >>> On Nov 5, 2011, at 12:16 , Julien Puydt wrote: >>> >>>> Le 05/11/2011 17:42, William Stein a écrit : >>>>> What do you base this "probably" on? Having started and watched >>>>> Sage "evolve" of over 6 years, if anything it is not evolving in >>>>> the direction you suggest. >>> >>>> Fair point. But that can't last. [snip] > >> As discussed elsewhere, a first step would be to split off the Sage- >> specific parts of spkgs from the upstream tarball / source tree. We'd >> also need better dependencies, with version number matching, a >> distinction between build and runtime requirements, etc. pp., i.e. >> modular, formal package metadata (which could include our current >> build scripts, although they'd also better be split into pieces, with >> a lot factored out). > > Most of this has already been done by the sage-on-gentoo project. Using > gentoo-prefix, it is even possible to install it on different operating > systems. I've been working on making a sage like distribution by > merging these two. The repository is here:
In practice, how is this working? Has it been in general use? Has it been used across multiple major releases of Gentoo? Justin -- Justin C. Walker, Curmudgeon at Large Director Institute for the Enhancement of the Director's Income ----------- Nobody knows the trouble I've been ----------- -- 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
