On Wed, Apr 9, 2025 at 10:21 PM Marc Culler wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 9, 2025 at 8:07 PM Nils Bruin wrote:
>>
>> On Monday, 7 April 2025 at 08:59:40 UTC-7 marc@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> If the Python spkg were removed we would no longer be able to start from a
>> standard build of Sage.
>>
>> Can
I regularly build proper multiarch (so x86 and arm) Sage Docker
containers, e.g.,
https://hub.docker.com/repository/docker/sagemathinc/sagemath/general
https://hub.docker.com/orgs/sagemathinc/repositories
-- William
On Wed, Apr 9, 2025 at 10:00 PM 'Nasser M. Abbasi' via sage-devel
wrote:
>
>
On 9 April 2025 18:54:13 GMT-05:00, Nils Bruin wrote:
>On Wednesday, 9 April 2025 at 16:44:31 UTC-7 dim...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>As I already explained, it's quite a stretch by Sage's standards to call
>python3 package standard. Because it is not tested enough;
>because few months into release,
On Wed, Apr 9, 2025 at 8:07 PM Nils Bruin wrote:
> On Monday, 7 April 2025 at 08:59:40 UTC-7 marc@gmail.com wrote:
>
> If the Python spkg were removed we would no longer be able to start from a
> standard build of Sage.
>
> Can you explain what the non-standard part would be
>
William says "
On Wed, Apr 09, 2025 at 12:36:59PM -0700, Nils Bruin wrote:
> On Wednesday, 9 April 2025 at 12:15:07 UTC-7 dim...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >No, this won't fly. This is going to break the already fragile logic
> >behind package types.
> >Standard packages cannot be optionally installed, so it can't s
On Monday, 7 April 2025 at 08:59:40 UTC-7 marc@gmail.com wrote:
If the Python spkg were removed we would no longer be able to start from a
standard build of Sage.
Can you explain what the non-standard part would be and why you are
concerned it would be more fragile on the side of Sage? To m
On Monday, April 7, 2025 at 11:48:15 PM UTC-5 Dima wrote:
Besides, Nils' proposal would mean to introduce an entirely new kind of
Sage package,
No, it wouldn't. It would make a small change to how one existing
configure option is handled by the configure script.
- Marc
--
You received
> On Wed, Apr 9, 2025 at 2:37 PM Nils Bruin wrote:
>> Quite frankly, things like conda and uv are great initiatives and it would
>> be great for sage to work nice with them. Conda is getting quite mature and
>> has a wide user base, so transitioning to depending on conda may be a
>> reasonable
>
> At the same time, the concession that python3.spkg *can* still provide
> python if really wanted helps Marc see that the MacOS app build is taken
> seriously. I would expect it's a major delivery platform of sagemath
> functionality to users, so it should be taken seriously.
Anecdotally in my
On Wednesday, 9 April 2025 at 12:15:07 UTC-7 dim...@gmail.com wrote:
No, this won't fly. This is going to break the already fragile logic
behind package types.
Standard packages cannot be optionally installed, so it can't stay
standard. Optional packages probably cannot appear in toolchain.
P
On Wed, Apr 9, 2025 at 9:05 AM Marc Culler wrote:
>
>
>
> On Monday, April 7, 2025 at 11:48:15 PM UTC-5 Dima wrote:
>
> Besides, Nils' proposal would mean to introduce an entirely new kind of Sage
> package,
>
>
> No, it wouldn't. It would make a small change to how one existing configure
> op
On Monday, 7 April 2025 at 09:17:18 UTC-7 David Lowry-Duda wrote:
Maybe I'm misinterpreting, but we already have --with-system-python3 that
defaults to "yes", right? Is this different than the proposed
--install_own_python option?
I would expect that the flag *prefers* a system python that me
12 matches
Mail list logo
