In gentoo, for instance, there is a file that you edit to add the licenses that
you accept. That way the package manager knows which packages can be installed
and which can't.
I don't know if that kind of system would work for sage, but it does work
pretty well for gentoo.
--
You received thi
Thank you!
Le mercredi 8 juillet 2015 12:41:03 UTC+2, Jeroen Demeyer a écrit :
>
> On 2015-07-08 12:37, Han Frederic wrote:
> > with the make method, is there something analogous to ./sage -i -c
> > pkgname ?
>
> env SAGE_CHECK=yes make pkgname
>
> (in bash, you can drop the "env")
>
--
You
On 2015-07-08 12:37, Han Frederic wrote:
with the make method, is there something analogous to ./sage -i -c
pkgname ?
env SAGE_CHECK=yes make pkgname
(in bash, you can drop the "env")
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscr
Le vendredi 3 juillet 2015 09:41:02 UTC+2, Jeroen Demeyer a écrit :
>
> Hello all,
>
> There were some important changes to the Sage build system in 6.8.beta7:
>
> * All logs of running "make" will appear in install.log, including the
> logs of the documentation and the Sage library build. Not
> In any case, I think that the above amendmend of SageMath's install
> script would make life for package maintainers easier.
I am thinking that if we were to add this 'interactive license
agreement' to the spkg-install of a non-GPL-compatible package, it
could be a problem when that package gets
On 4 July 2015 at 15:19, Julien Puydt wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Le vendredi 03 juil. 2015 à 16:51:19 (+0100), Nathann Cohen a écrit :
> > > but this is not interactive and no confirmation is requested. Should
> it?
> >
> > My understanding is that you do not need to in this situation: the
> > user explic
Hi All,
On 2015-07-04, Julien Puydt wrote:
> Le vendredi 03 juil. 2015 à 16:51:19 (+0100), Nathann Cohen a écrit :
>> > but this is not interactive and no confirmation is requested. Should it?
>>
>> My understanding is that you do not need to in this situation: the
>> user explicitly asked to i
Hi,
Le vendredi 03 juil. 2015 à 16:51:19 (+0100), Nathann Cohen a écrit :
> > but this is not interactive and no confirmation is requested. Should it?
>
> My understanding is that you do not need to in this situation: the
> user explicitly asked to install a non-GPL-compatible software, so "he
>
On Friday, July 3, 2015 at 12:41:02 AM UTC-7, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
>
> Hello all,
>
> There were some important changes to the Sage build system in 6.8.beta7:
>
> * All logs of running "make" will appear in install.log, including the
> logs of the documentation and the Sage library build. Nothi
On 2015-07-03 15:55, Volker Braun wrote:
The GPL doesn't restrict what you do on your own computer. If __you__
willingly initiate linking of gpl and non-gpl code on your computer,
then thats fine (you can't distribute it but that doesn't concern your
own computer). But you can only willingly init
> but this is not interactive and no confirmation is requested. Should it?
My understanding is that you do not need to in this situation: the
user explicitly asked to install a non-GPL-compatible software, so "he
is assumed to know what he is doing".
Apparently we only need a warning if the user
On 3 July 2015 at 11:24, Simon King wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2015-07-03, Nathann Cohen wrote:
> >> * New-style packages can now be installed with dependency checking by
> >> running "make pkgname". This applies to all types (standard, optional,
> >> experimental).
> >>
> >
> > About this, Volker rais
The GPL doesn't restrict what you do on your own computer. If __you__
willingly initiate linking of gpl and non-gpl code on your computer, then
thats fine (you can't distribute it but that doesn't concern your own
computer). But you can only willingly initiate something if you are
actually awar
On Friday, 3 July 2015 14:14:24 UTC+1, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
>
> On 2015-07-03 15:10, Volker Braun wrote:
> > If you "convey" linked gpl and non-gpl code then you must make the
> > source available under terms of the gpl. Writing a script that does it
> > silently is still a form of conveyance
On 2015-07-03 15:10, Volker Braun wrote:
If you "convey" linked gpl and non-gpl code then you must make the
source available under terms of the gpl. Writing a script that does it
silently is still a form of conveyance on the script author's part.
Could be, but then your statement remains true i
If you "convey" linked gpl and non-gpl code then you must make the source
available under terms of the gpl. Writing a script that does it silently is
still a form of conveyance on the script author's part.
On Friday, July 3, 2015 at 2:52:24 PM UTC+2, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
>
> On 2015-07-03 11
On 2015-07-03 11:44, Nathann Cohen wrote:
one could "silently" install a non-GPL package without
knowing, and that the GPL does not allow that.
Why do you think so? I don't see how it could matter at all whether it
is done "silently" or interactively.
--
You received this message because you
Hi!
On 2015-07-03, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
> open a ticket... :-)
There is a ticket open for upgrading my spkg already. There have been
too many backwards incompatible changes in Sage recently...
Cheers,
Simon
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-d
On Friday, 3 July 2015 12:08:30 UTC+1, Simon King wrote:
>
> Hi Nathann,
>
> On 2015-07-03, Nathann Cohen > wrote:
> > Alternatively, and because your package can never become standard
> > (because of this dependency), you can simplify the user's workflow a
> > bit and add an interactive lice
> Such interactive license agreement would already be there, if I'd know
> how to write such thing in bash...
You will find an example at src/bin/sage-spkg. Look for the string
"You are about to download and install an experimental package." :-)
Nathann
--
You received this message because you
Hi Nathann,
On 2015-07-03, Nathann Cohen wrote:
> Alternatively, and because your package can never become standard
> (because of this dependency), you can simplify the user's workflow a
> bit and add an interactive license agreement to you spkg-install file:
> it would tell the user what is abou
> However, it must not be
> the case that my package installs database_gap without asking the user.
That's also what I understood. You can return an error if the other
thing is not installed, but not add the dependency yourself.
Alternatively, and because your package can never become standard
(b
Hi,
On 2015-07-03, Nathann Cohen wrote:
>> * New-style packages can now be installed with dependency checking by
>> running "make pkgname". This applies to all types (standard, optional,
>> experimental).
>>
>
> About this, Volker raised an important point:
>
> Technically, an optional GPL-comp
>
> * New-style packages can now be installed with dependency checking by
> running "make pkgname". This applies to all types (standard, optional,
> experimental).
>
About this, Volker raised an important point:
Technically, an optional GPL-compatible package can have a GPL-incompatible
packa
24 matches
Mail list logo
