On 17/03/13 21:38, Julien Puydt wrote: > Le 17/03/2013 00:36, than...@debian.org a écrit : >> Is splitting the vanilla upstream sources off planned? That would be >> very helpful for distributions. Another helpful thing would be a clear >> distinction between fixes/adjustment to the library and Sage glue, >> because we need all the Sage glue, but want to decide ourselves which >> other patches to apply. > > Let me add that there is also no clear distinction between tests which > check the code does correct calculations and tests which check things > are installed in some place and not in another ; see for example: > http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/12627 > having such tests spread here and there makes fractioning sage in > distribution packages more painful than should be. >
Fortunately the instances of tests for that are not as many as you make it sound. There are indeed the issues of trac 12627. Actually in the case of Singular there is the added issue that sage install a "singular" file and calls it when upstream only ships "Singular-3-1-5". In this case that make the sage call a bit more version independent. But there are doctests that indeed specify a path or part of a path that is sage specific, local/share/pari in sage/interfaces/gp.py and local/share/maxima in doc/en/constructions/plotting.rst are the only examples I can see. Other test are for precise version number when other versions works just as well (R, pari version is also tested but you should follow sage closely there). Francois -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
