Jeroen Demeyer writes:
> On 2012-03-09 15:48, Keshav Kini wrote:
>> I'm probably missing something obvious, but why do you need a repository
>> in order to apply a patch to files? Doesn't `patch` work fine?
>
> We need the repository for exactly the same reason as we need a
> repository for devel/
On Fri, 09 Mar 2012 17:12:30 Keshav Kini wrote:
> Jeroen Demeyer writes:
> > On 2012-03-09 06:18, Keshav Kini wrote:
> >> Something else: Why do we even have local/ ? Why not just have bin/,
> >> lib/, etc. in the root directory?
> >
> > I like local/. It makes the top-level directory a lot clea
On 2012-03-09 15:48, Keshav Kini wrote:
> I'm probably missing something obvious, but why do you need a repository
> in order to apply a patch to files? Doesn't `patch` work fine?
We need the repository for exactly the same reason as we need a
repository for devel/sage. When you are *developing*
Jeroen Demeyer writes:
> On 2012-03-09 10:07, Keshav Kini wrote:
>> To elaborate: everything needed to build Sage should be somewhere in our
>> single repository, and when we produce a tarball, it should be copied
>> out into the root of the tarball. We don't fundamentally need a root
>> repo in t
William Stein writes:
> On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 6:25 AM, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
>> On 2012-03-09 10:07, Keshav Kini wrote:
>>> To elaborate: everything needed to build Sage should be somewhere in our
>>> single repository, and when we produce a tarball, it should be copied
>>> out into the root of
On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 6:25 AM, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
> On 2012-03-09 10:07, Keshav Kini wrote:
>> To elaborate: everything needed to build Sage should be somewhere in our
>> single repository, and when we produce a tarball, it should be copied
>> out into the root of the tarball. We don't fundame
Jeroen Demeyer writes:
> On 2012-03-09 10:46, Keshav Kini wrote:
>> it is the only one which is under revision control.
> So what?
I'm not sure what you find unclear here. To put it as simply as I am
able: when we write code, we put it under revision control. Conversely,
if code is under revision
On 2012-03-09 10:07, Keshav Kini wrote:
> To elaborate: everything needed to build Sage should be somewhere in our
> single repository, and when we produce a tarball, it should be copied
> out into the root of the tarball. We don't fundamentally need a root
> repo in the first place.
We don't *fun
On 2012-03-09 10:46, Keshav Kini wrote:
> it is the only one which is under revision control.
So what?
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to
sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this grou
P Purkayastha writes:
> I believe this kind of segregation of development files and installed files in
> sage is actually quite good.
>
> 1. A binary distribution of sage will contain everything except the devel/
> directory (and spkg/ I suppose)
We could equally easily just ship the devel/ direc
I believe this kind of segregation of development files and installed files
in sage is actually quite good.
1. A binary distribution of sage will contain everything except the devel/
directory (and spkg/ I suppose)
2. If I download the binary distribution and later I want to edit the
sources,
Jeroen Demeyer writes:
> I would leave data/extcode alone for now. If you want to do something
> something with it, it should be part of "refactoring $SAGE_ROOT/data".
> I don't think extcode should be special-cased among the subdirectories
> of $SAGE_ROOT/data.
It should be special cased becaus
Jeroen Demeyer writes:
> On 2012-03-09 06:18, Keshav Kini wrote:
>> Does this sound feasible?
> You would probably need to change a lot of hard-coded directories. So,
> lots of boring work but it could be done.
That's good!
>> Something else: Why do we even have local/ ? Why not just have bin/,
Jeroen Demeyer writes:
> On 2012-03-09 09:29, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
>> On 2012-03-09 06:18, Keshav Kini wrote:
>>> - Make `sage -b` also run `sage --python devel/sagenb/setup.py develop`,
>>> copy relevant files from devel/sagebin to local/bin/ , and copy
>>> relevant files from devel/sageext/
Jeroen Demeyer writes:
> On 2012-03-09 06:18, Keshav Kini wrote:
>> - Make `sage -b` also run `sage --python devel/sagenb/setup.py develop`,
>> copy relevant files from devel/sagebin to local/bin/ , and copy
>> relevant files from devel/sageext/ to... somewhere, perhaps share/sage/ ?
> Thereby
Julien Puydt writes:
> Le vendredi 09 mars, Jeroen Demeyer a écrit:
>> You forget to address one very important point: *why* should we do
>> this? Which problem will it solve?
>
> The problem of having a hundred of packages each its own repository,
> its own history, with no simple way to get over
Jeroen Demeyer writes:
> You forget to address one very important point: *why* should we do this?
> Which problem will it solve?
Would you accept "the current way is ugly" as a problem it will solve?
Mainly, it's cleaner to separate development code from production code
than to have code reposit
Keshav Kini writes:
> - Move all various non-SPKG repositories to devel/sage/
Sorry, I meant move all various non-SPKG repositories to devel/sage* (as
explained in the subsequent lines).
-Keshav
Join us in #sagemath on irc.freenode.net !
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-de
18 matches
Mail list logo
