On Wednesday, March 1, 2017 at 7:52:26 AM UTC, Jeroen Demeyer wrote: > > I have been thinking about this too. My personal conclusion was that the > "type" enumeration (standard, optional, experimental, pip, script) is > simply too restricted and that we need additional metadata with more > degrees of freedom. > > Currently, the "type" field is relevant for: > - which packages are installed by default > - which packages should be packed in the source tarball > - which --optional tags are given when doctesting > - whether a warning message is given when installing the package > - the Make rules of a package > - the automatic dependencies of a package > > I think that's bordering on being too much already. So +1 to more > metadata but -1 to inventing yet another type. >
Probably one can have an optional `replacements` file in the package directory of each package that can be replaced by some others; or, in build/packages/, a file named `alternatives` listing alternative packages, e.g. altas openblas foo bar baz ... <another list of alternatives>... ... -- 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 https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
