On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 09:45:18AM +0200, Jeroen Demeyer wrote: > On 04/22/2013 09:28 AM, Felix Salfelder wrote: > >sage already was modular in that sense, before the git transition > >started. all that was missing, was a build system for sagelib and > >sage-python (this is where i ignorantly started my first proposal). > >switching to git is a great idea. if submodules/externals are to > >complicated to use, subdirectories are less meaningful but still great > >in seperating parts. > For me, modularity means that the external packages (such as GCC, > Python, ATLAS, GAP,...) can be removed from Sage and a system > version could be used. I don't see the advantage of Sage itself > (scripts + Python library + C library) being modular.
Hi Jeroen. do you see disadvantages in treating sage parts as modules? maybe it doesnt matter much, whether c_lib and scripts are in the same module or not, for distribution purposes it makes sense to have python-sage and sagenb seperated. for gentoo it makes sense to have c_lib seperated. most importantly: /keep/ things seperated, so distributions can pick it up (and can pick it up tomorrow, after someone has reinvented sage "the distribution"). regards felix -- 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.
