On Tue, Oct 8, 2024 at 8:52 PM 'Gonzalo Tornaría' via sage-devel
wrote:
> For me cypari2 works really nice and it's not particularly difficult to
> package (except it broke with pari 2.17, but of course having this as a
> standalone package makes it much easier to fix it). What is the problem w
On Monday, October 7, 2024 at 10:26:52 AM UTC-3 marc@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, October 7, 2024 at 12:05:25 AM UTC-5 Kwankyu Lee wrote:
On the other hand, who would be the users of the distribution packages for
whatever need? I wonder how they overlap with sage developers.
A concrete exam
FWIW, the source distribution of sagemath 10.4 (from pypy) is about 20M,
see https://pypi.org/project/sagemath-standard/#files
We build the sagemath package for void linux from this source alone,
obtaining a binary package of about 55M, see
https://voidlinux.org/packages/?arch=x86_64&q=sagemath
I read on Python Discource a proposal to allow externally hosted
wheels on PyPI. With PyPI only hosting metadata and
checksums. I imagine this will lift the size constraints, if accepted.
Dima
On Tuesday, October 8, 2024 at 11:59:12 PM UTC+1 Nils Bruin wrote:
> On Tuesday 8 October 2024 at 15:40
On Tuesday 8 October 2024 at 15:40:07 UTC-7 oscar.j@gmail.com wrote:
> As you're pointing out, sage still fits within 10GB in source, so it
looks like sagemath could just be one pypi package.
I think that you have misunderstood the limits that Marc was referring
to. The 100MB file limits m
> > On Tuesday 8 October 2024 at 13:20:54 UTC-7 marc@gmail.com wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, October 8, 2024 at 1:23:55 PM UTC-6 Nils Bruin wrote:
>
> > Pypi packages have a default size limit of 100MB per file and 10GB per
> > project.
>
> As you're pointing out, sage still fits within 10GB in sourc
On Tuesday 8 October 2024 at 13:20:54 UTC-7 marc@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, October 8, 2024 at 1:23:55 PM UTC-6 Nils Bruin wrote:
- the examples we have of bits of software developed as part of sage that
ended up as library components of other projects are peripheral,
interfacing parts
On Tuesday, October 8, 2024 at 1:23:55 PM UTC-6 Nils Bruin wrote:
- the examples we have of bits of software developed as part of sage that
ended up as library components of other projects are peripheral,
interfacing parts that were spun off into independent libraries.
- we don't have exampl
Summarizing what I've seen come by here:
- the examples we have of bits of software developed as part of sage that
ended up as library components of other projects are peripheral,
interfacing parts that were spun off into independent libraries.
- we don't have examples of core functionality
On 22:35 Mon 07 Oct 2024, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
Indeed, Flint is dual licensed under GPL and LGPL - so why don't we
re-license sagelib under LGPL then.
...[SNIP]...
I don't know whether it'd need a lot of individual approvals, but
GPL->LGPL is certainly done quite often. E.g. GMP was relicenced u
> Mind you, Mathematica (!) bundles Flint (which is GPL, and depends on
GPLd libraries).
This is wrong. Flint is LGPLv3, which is what enables Mathematica to link
to it.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this
11 matches
Mail list logo
