On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 05:15:30PM +0200, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
> On 04/22/2013 12:06 PM, Felix Salfelder wrote:
> >why not leave these choices to the user?
> Because it's more work for us to support this, for absolutely no advantage.
Dear Jeroen,
I would really like to do that project, and i'm trying hard to
understand your objections against modules. maybe i will understand some
day.
to get this going i'd like to make a change, that should lead around
that issue before the end of the application period.
A I restate the project goals to
"""
make it possible to
1) build sage ("the distribution") by typing ./configure && make
2) build/install sage ("the library") with
./configure --just-library --prefix=whatever && make install
3) build/install sage ("the program") with
./configure --sagetheprogram --prefix=whatever && make install
and make sage distribution friendly.
"""
B i'll implement this in a modular way. one module gets one configurable
build system. (a module roughly is a subdirectory of src).
C i'll then target a monolithic, standalone build system for sage ("the
library"), which is the stuff in <git-repo>/src.
I understand that it's C, you are after (is that right?). i'm conviced, I
can make A work by B. if theres nothing within sage that blocks C, there
will be nothing left that blocks C. In that case I expect that I can
concat the configure scripts from B within two hours -- and reach C.
would that be acceptable for you? anything else maybe?
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.
