Le mercredi 25 octobre 2017 12:01:45 UTC+2, Erik Bray a écrit :
>
> On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 3:56 AM, William Stein <wst...@gmail.com 
> <javascript:>> wrote: 
> > 
> > On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 3:08 PM Eric Gourgoulhon <egourg...@gmail.com 
> <javascript:>> 
> > wrote: 
> >> 
> >> Thanks Emmanuel for the discussion summary. 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> Le mardi 24 octobre 2017 20:58:17 UTC+2, Emmanuel Charpentier a écrit : 
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> It is true. But we are hoisted by our own petard : from our tutorial : 
> >>> "The Sage download file comes with “batteries included”. In other 
> words, 
> >>> although Sage uses Python, IPython, PARI, GAP, Singular, Maxima, NTL, 
> GMP, 
> >>> and so on, you do not need to install them separately as they are 
> included 
> >>> with the Sage distribution." 
> >>> I fail to see how this would not apply to OpenSSL (under the heading 
> "and 
> >>> so on")... 
> >>> 
> >> 
> >> I have the feeling that the current tendency is towards a more modular 
> and 
> >> lighter Sage, which deviates from the original "batteries included" 
> >> philosophy. Maybe the latter should be rephrased as "mathematical 
> batteries 
> >> included". This would exclude standard "technical"  software like 
> OpenSSL, 
> >> which should be provided systemwide. 
> > 
> > 
> > Well said.  I’m the reason for the batteries-included full distribution 
> Sage 
> > approach, and I did it that way entirely out of necessity: very limited 
> > manpower, Python packaging was in disarray, etc., all while attempting 
> to 
> > support many environments like Solaris, Cygwin, OS X,...   Python 
> packaging 
> > has improved a lot since 2004, with conda and pip, and there are a 
> hundred 
> > times more people working on Sage.   Git now exists.  I hope we have 
> further 
> > discussions in this list about ways to realize the vision you have 
> roughly 
> > sketched above. 
>
> I'm still actively working on improving Sage's build system to 
> strongly prefer dependencies from the system wherever possible.


Seconded !!! As William pointed out, we should review what can be 
unconditionally expected systemwide, what needs checks (i. e. minimal 
version, support for specific functionality) and what really needs to be 
incorporated (e. g. specific quirks of a package not correctable in Sage's 
interface to it...).

Larger review than our current objective. May xe defer this to a "Which 
batteries ?" discussion ?
 

>  The 
> actual implementation of this is not hard at all in principle, but 
> it's slow-going just because there is a lot of prerequisite plumbing 
> work that is taking time to get reviewed, and working properly on all 
> the supported platforms. 
>

Large piece of work... "*Exigi monumentum aere perrenius*", my tired foot ! 
;-]

--
Emmanuel Charpentier
 

>
> Erik 
>

-- 
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.

Reply via email to