On Tuesday, November 27, 2012 10:06:15 PM UTC-5, Timo Kluck wrote: > > Op woensdag 28 november 2012 03:48:11 UTC+1 schreef kcrisman het volgende: >> >> >>> >>> One is an updated Boost library (standard spkg), and the other is an >>> update to polymake (optional spkg). I've had to upload them to my own >>> server because of the filesize limit on trac. It would be nice if someone >>> could review them. >>> >>> The first one may be a bit controversial because of its size (~5M), >>> which has been discussed here earlier. The total boost library is ~50M, the >>> headers are ~5M (this package) and the current package in sage is ~300K. >>> This current package missed certain headers that the recent version of >>> polymake needs. >>> >>> >> Is it possible to have the full Boost be an optional spkg as well? We >> have boost-cropped, so maybe boost would install separately? Then this >> wouldn't be an issue. >> >> > That's definitely possible. It would make sense to do that as soon as > other packages depend on the libraries and not just the headers. > > Or do you mean to separate even some of the headers out of the package and > into the optional one? I think that's also possible, but quite hard to > maintain. > > Sorry, what I mean is that the standard spkg would remain the same, and the optional one would be the one you created and which would have instructions to overwrite anything from the standard spkg, as well as of course including more stuff. Perhaps there is a technical reason not to do this. I don't mean that the optional one should be hard to maintain, just that the current one should remain as is, since this has been discussed before. Though on some platforms apparently more of Boost is needed...
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel?hl=en.
