Hi Jeroen,
On 2015-09-11, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
> On 2015-09-11 11:41, Simon King wrote:
>> I published a working old-style spkg that
>> copes with the backward incompatible changes that broke the "official"
>> optional spkg.
> Great! Let's just use that and revert #19004. No Nathann script neede
On 2015-09-11 11:41, Simon King wrote:
I published a working old-style spkg that
copes with the backward incompatible changes that broke the "official"
optional spkg.
Great! Let's just use that and revert #19004. No Nathann script needed.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed
On 2015-09-11, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
> Converting a broken old-style package to new-style will just give you a
> broken new-style package.
>
> I think that Nathann's script solves a non-existing problem.
Could still be helpful for me. I published a working old-style spkg that
copes with the back
On 2015-09-10 20:12, Simon King wrote:
Hi Jeroen,
On 2015-09-10, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
It seems that people which are against old-style packages are against
them because they are broken. Those people will probably be against
old-converted-to-new-style packages too.
Didn't Volker say that the
Hi Jeroen,
On 2015-09-10, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
> It seems that people which are against old-style packages are against
> them because they are broken. Those people will probably be against
> old-converted-to-new-style packages too.
Didn't Volker say that they are broken BECAUSE they are old-s
The script is also available there:
http://www.steinertriples.fr/ncohen/tmp/mknewstyle
--
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...@googl
