Le mercredi 29 février, William Stein a écrit: > Even if Sage didn't include Python (say), we would still have to worry > about it as a dependency, and "big" would be replaced by "sage has too > many dependencies".
I tought I had insisted enough : the spkg would still be there, ready to be used. It just wouldn't be used unconditionally. Nothing broken for those who need everything, and time&size gains for the others. Win-win situation. > We would have to workaround Python bugs, worry > about the exact version of Python that is installed, etc., etc.. I'm > certain things would only be more complicated, not less -- see any of > the video editing programs for Linux for examples of this "dependency > hell" in practice. If you think otherwise, make your own version of > Sage that doesn't include Python, bzip2, gfortran, etc., and see how > it goes. Sorry, I don't use video editing programs. I just know that I just have to launch my package manager, choose what I want. Correct deps get installed and everything works. Even though I'm using the "unstable" debian, breaks are rare. Could you tell me which magical property of sage makes impossible what is possible for other complex systems, and huge sets of packages? > > (1) when you want to apply a theorem, do you just check for the > > hypotheses then go on, or do you re-do the proof down from the > > axioms? > > Neither. This is a false analogy. Sage doesn't do anything like the > analogue of redoing proofs "down from the axioms". It is quite on the contrary a very good analogy : it does rebuild a good chunk of my system up from the *minimal* deps, even if many things it needs is already there. Snark on #sagemath -- 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
