Hi Volker. actually i anticipate that you know better. anyway i reply. again. just for the record.
On Sat, Feb 21, 2015 at 06:55:26AM -0800, Volker Braun wrote: > That is not true. What is true is that none of the core developers wants to > make their life even more difficult so that the debian packages have less > to do. this is *not* *about* *debian*. only about 1/3 of linux installations are debian based. a lot of distributions are not even based on any other. sage does not only run on linux. go figure. > At the bottom of it, it is a social rather than a technical problem. You > need to convince people that you have a better way, and be able to listen > to upstream projects. at no time did i have a better way to do what you do. i wanted to try something else. somehing more straightforward. i listened to upstream and i have dropped the idea (see my last mail). still i do not know which other way might have done the trick. for the very least i did not try to move to portage. conversation could have been more productive. > Trying to rip out cythonize() because automake doesn't do wildcards? i fell back to automake, because cythonize does not support dependency tracking. does it today? don't know. needless to say that i have asked for alternatives. out-of-tree builds solved a different set of problems. afaik, the recompile-everything-everytime issue stroke back a few months ago... while i tried to address some of these issues (yes, the technical side), i learned that - modularisation is evil - libgap is necessary and must pretend to be gap - tabs are bad and so are makefiles - autotools releases must be pulled from git - capitalization is important and maybe other surprising or interesting things that i forgot about (still, thanks for the useful input!). and again: in which way does autotools not support wildcards? i guess you are pointing to the fact that i did not want to rely on them. just add it to the list above. > And you are surprised that this did not make it upstream? no. should i? this was never complete nor will it be of any use for the better-bootstrap-the-universe folks. it is not your obligation to support or even think any of this. sage is a great/interesting piece of software. sure, attempts to package (with or without help from upstream) will not die down. it is a matter of how to deal with external ideas, needs and resources. hopefully, my project will serve as a warning to others and eventually justify a fork that avoids sage-the-distribution completely. just sagelib alone is considerably simpler to deal with. for packaging you don't need dependency tracking *hint hint*. all the best 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
