OK, let me vote too.
> Votes so far are: > (B): Jeroen Demeyer, Simon King, Sébastien Labbé > (D): Volker Braun, John Cremona, John Palmieri > > Anybody else wants to give his/her opinion? > There are packages out there that are not listed on official sagemath.org/packages_lists : http://www.slabbe.org/Sage/slabbe-0.1.1.spkg http://www.liafa.univ-paris-diderot.fr/~paperman/cpaut.spkg To my knowledge, they are not broken on sage-6.8. Maybe others? Personnally, I prefer the old style because I do not need to change Sage (update checksums) for somebody (like myself!) to install a modified version of my package while I develop it. I do read sage-devel. And I am willing to change to the new style if you force me to (or maybe try pip if I can install an updated version of an optional package without changing sage). But I would also prefer a transition time with a deprecation warning allowing people that you will never see on that mailing list to adapt. Charles Paperman wrote his package [1] on semigroup and automata stuff. Charles never read sage-devel. Charles never contributed to sage. But he is able to write code and managed to create that spkg last spring which allows him to easily share his code to his colleagues. [1] http://www.liafa.univ-paris-diderot.fr/~paperman/index.php?page=sage I still feel that the new style is not made for small scale hidden optional packages that people may want to do. Why should sage know about the checksum every optional packages that users may want to create? Sébastien -- 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.
