> On 5/04/2017, at 10:41, Nils Bruin <nbr...@sfu.ca> wrote: > > On Tuesday, April 4, 2017 at 2:24:52 PM UTC-7, François wrote: > Let’s be clear, I could ship a list of possible > optional packages supported in sage-on-gentoo > but any checking of package availability would > have to go through the the distribution package > manager. > > Or through the sage doctesting framework. It would probably be quite doable > for each known package to write a doctest that succeeds if a certain package > is installed (to some reasonable extent) and fails if it is not. Hence, you > could just query the sage runtime to see if certain packages seem to be > present. The biggest problem with this approach is that "installed but really > badly broken" would not be distinguished from "not installed". >
The current system doesn’t care about broken either. In fact I’d argue that the approach you describe, which could possibly be hooked with the “feature” system developed for runtime use, would be better at spotting brokenness than the current one. With the current system you could install and then remove some essential files manually and the doctesting framework would still try to use it. It is installed according to the packaging system after all. runtime testing would have a better chance to avoid broken packages. François -- 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.
