On 17 September 2015 at 16:16, William Stein <wst...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 7:48 AM, Jeroen Demeyer <jdeme...@cage.ugent.be> > wrote: >> Hello, >> >> the logic for installing packages in Sage has changed recently. Let me >> explain what changed: >> >> The command "sage -i PKGNAME" now only supports new-style packages. The >> PKGNAME should be a bare package name (no version numbers or URLs or >> whatever). >> >> Packages are now installed *with* dependencies, which means that you can >> actually run "sage -i PKGNAME" right after extracting the Sage sources (or >> running "make distclean") and it should work. Within Sage, the dependencies >> of a package are stored in >> build/pkgs/PKGNAME/dependencies. If PKGNAME is already up-to-date, then >> "sage -i PKGNAME" will do nothing. >> >> The command "sage -f PKGNAME" will force install a package, even if it was >> already installed (the dependencies are installed, but not force installed). >> >> The functionality of the old "sage -f" command was moved to "sage -p", there >> is no replacement for the old "sage -i". So, "sage -p PKGNAME" supports >> new-style and old-style packages (without considering dependencies). For >> old-style packages, the bare package name or a full pathname/URL to a .spkg >> may be given. >> >> Note that old-style packages are deprecated. If you care about an old-style >> package, it should be upgraded to a new-style package. Also, the old-style >> standard and archived packages on the Sage server are no longer considered. >> >> Recall that running "make" will now automatically upgrade new-style optional >> packages which are installed and that "sage -t" will automatically doctest >> new-style optional packages too. >> >> Finally, note that "sage -i" and "sage -f" actually support make targets, >> not just packages. So you can run "sage -f doc" as alternative to "make >> doc-clean && make doc" or "sage -f sagelib" as alternative to "sage -ba", >> but with dependencies. > > Thanks for summarizing all that so well.
Agreed. Is the non-existence of a dependencies file valid for a package with none? I think so: I noticed that the optional package database_cremona_ellcurve has no dependencies file (after I pulled in the beta7 edition of the develop branch). But I also tried "sage -i database_cremona_ellcurve" and it was happy (i.e. rather verbosely did nothing, since that was already installed). John > Is this information going to > also go in the docs somewhere (e.g., in the install guide?). > > -- > William (http://wstein.org) > > -- > 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. -- 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.
