On 2019-01-01, Volker Braun <vbraun.n...@gmail.com> wrote: > gap is standard, gap_packages is optional > > $ cat build/pkgs/gap/type > standard > $ cat build/pkgs/gap_packages/type > optional
I had a look at #22626, where some comments indicate that database_gap is becoming fully *standard*. On the other hand, comments in #26856 indicate that database_gap is merged into gap_packages, thus *not* standard. On yet another hand, #26856 removes database_gap from the dependencies list of p_group_cohomology and also edits SPKG.txt in a way that indicates that at least SmallGroups *is* standard. So, the pieces of information I got form the following picture: "database_gap was fully merged into *two* other packages. Rumour has it that SmallGroups is now in gap, perhaps some other parts as well (but that's a secret), and a non-empty subset of database_gap now is in gap_packages." That's not nice. If it is really the case that database_gap was split, some parts merged into a standard package, other parts merged into an optional package, then it would be good to have a list somewhere. Regards, Simon -- 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.
