On Friday, 17 April 2015 15:50:10 UTC+1, kcrisman wrote: > > > Side question -- Is anything guaranteed to build all optional >>> packages? What's the current status of testing them? I keep raising >>> this issue... >>> >> >> If you ever get tired of raising the issue, maybe you could try doing >> something about it. >> > > Until we have the infrastructure of R I don't think this will happen. > Which raises the question of how R does its whole CRAN and Rforge etc. > > > But we digressed. Does anyone has an opinion about my original question? > > Luckily it turns out (?) that http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/18198 > wasn't about this. >
that's right. But I still recall sage-support threads where binary vs source was relevant. Maybe this has been all fixed. (as well, there were relatively often binary builds that were not 100% clean, linking to libs which were not distributed along) Perhaps the test is to see how much of Sage can be rebuilt when one only has a binary distribution. (make distclean removes too much though :-)) > Maybe we should say something about optional packages *may* need a build > from source. I assume there are lots that don't, though, right? (If all > of them or nearly all do, that is different.) > -- 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.
