On Wed, 12 Nov 2008 at 08:23AM -0800, Tim Abbott wrote:
> If someone wants to write bash completion rules for .spkg files, I'd
> be happy to include them in the Debian package for Sage.
One thing to note is that bash completion works with commands, not
extensions, so for example we'd need to add t
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 3:23 AM, Tim Abbott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Oct 28, 8:29 pm, "Minh Nguyen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I won't do it right away because I want to know people's opinions
>> about the issues contained in this thread. That is, I'm still awaiting
>> the final resolu
On Oct 28, 8:29 pm, "Minh Nguyen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I won't do it right away because I want to know people's opinions
> about the issues contained in this thread. That is, I'm still awaiting
> the final resolution.
While I suspect that Sage will change the extension one day, it seems
t
On Nov 2, 4:48 pm, Ronan Paixão <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I could agree with using .spkg even if it was only for readability, but
> a nice idea is: why can't we just use .egg ? It's pythonic and already a
> standard in python world. Also, there are tools available to deal with
> them (tools a
I could agree with using .spkg even if it was only for readability, but
a nice idea is: why can't we just use .egg ? It's pythonic and already a
standard in python world. Also, there are tools available to deal with
them (tools already included in sage). They can pack C stuff if needed
and fancy t
On Oct 28, 2008, at 6:29 PM, Minh Nguyen wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 10:22 AM, William Stein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 2:06 PM, Georg S. Weber
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Hey guys,
>>>
>>> having thought about it a bit more, I suddenly reali
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 10:22 AM, William Stein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 2:06 PM, Georg S. Weber
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Hey guys,
>>
>> having thought about it a bit more, I suddenly realized that I came to
>> like this ".spkg" extension.
>> That's pure
On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 at 10:41AM -0700, Tim Abbott wrote:
> The issue with tar is not on whether tar -xf foo.spkg works, but
> whether tar -xf sage_scripts will complete the remainder of the
> filename.
I'm a bit confused with your arguments: I understand the parts about
automated software tools nee
On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 2:06 PM, Georg S. Weber
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Hey guys,
>
> having thought about it a bit more, I suddenly realized that I came to
> like this ".spkg" extension.
> That's purely emotional, of course.
> But I'd surely miss it.
Since this is a question about user
Hey guys,
having thought about it a bit more, I suddenly realized that I came to
like this ".spkg" extension.
That's purely emotional, of course.
But I'd surely miss it.
(I heartily dislike that kind of superfluous ".spyx" extension, by the
way, but that's another topic.)
So -1 to my own propos
On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 10:58 AM, Justin C. Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Oct 28, 2008, at 10:41 , Tim Abbott wrote:
>
>>
>> On Oct 28, 1:07 pm, "Justin C. Walker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> For example "tar tf foo.spkg" works just fine on Mac OS X (10.5); and
>>> as Robert noted,
On Oct 28, 2008, at 11:03 , mabshoff wrote:
> On Oct 28, 10:58 am, "Justin C. Walker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Oct 28, 2008, at 10:41 , Tim Abbott wrote:
>>
>>> On Oct 28, 1:07 pm, "Justin C. Walker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
For example "tar tf foo.spkg" works just fine on Mac OS X
On Oct 28, 2008, at 11:03 , mabshoff wrote:
> On Oct 28, 10:58 am, "Justin C. Walker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Oct 28, 2008, at 10:41 , Tim Abbott wrote:
>>
>>> On Oct 28, 1:07 pm, "Justin C. Walker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
For example "tar tf foo.spkg" works just fine on Mac OS X
mabshoff wrote:
>
> But in the end I agree with you on the "-1" on the proposed name
> change. It is much less work to add instructions to the manual on how
> to add association/completion for popular tools than changing the name
> of the spkg extenion.
>
I couldn't agree more!
Jaap
--~--~
On Oct 28, 10:58 am, "Justin C. Walker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Oct 28, 2008, at 10:41 , Tim Abbott wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Oct 28, 1:07 pm, "Justin C. Walker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> For example "tar tf foo.spkg" works just fine on Mac OS X (10.5); and
> >> as Robert noted, you can
On Oct 28, 2008, at 10:41 , Tim Abbott wrote:
>
> On Oct 28, 1:07 pm, "Justin C. Walker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> For example "tar tf foo.spkg" works just fine on Mac OS X (10.5); and
>> as Robert noted, you can teach the Finder with the Get-Info trick.
>
> The issue with tar is not on whet
On Oct 28, 1:07 pm, "Justin C. Walker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> For example "tar tf foo.spkg" works just fine on Mac OS X (10.5); and
> as Robert noted, you can teach the Finder with the Get-Info trick.
The issue with tar is not on whether tar -xf foo.spkg works, but
whether tar -xf sage_sc
On Oct 28, 2008, at 00:45 , Georg S. Weber wrote:
> often I'd like to "just have a quick look" into a spkg.
> Then I copy it, rename it, tell Mac OS X that YES, I do want to rename
> it,
> and then I can open it with a mouse click, and change into the created
> directory.
> Finally I am able to
On Oct 28, 4:32 am, mabshoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Oct 28, 2:15 am, Robert Bradshaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
[snip]
> > I can't quite put my finger on why I have a
> > strong reaction, but I think it's because
> > "sage-3.2.alpha.spkg1.tar.bz2" is harder to (visually) parse, an
On Oct 28, 7:32 am, mabshoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -1 on the rename, too. It will cause massive problems without any
> serious benefit whatsoever. The manual clearly describes what an spkg
> is and provides tools to create them and so on. If one wants to play
> with the innards of Sage and
On Oct 28, 6:30 am, "David Joyner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Though I'm in favor of making things easier for the debian
> process (both (a) to add more Sage users and (b) in the perhaps
> wildly overly optimistic hope that one day Canonical will support Sage
> somehow), I wonder if it is possib
I think that it would be important to change the extension to .tar.bz2
so that the sage packages get recognized by standard systems tools.
(For instance, try to open a spkg with a filemanager like midnight
commander...)
May be we can change
foo.spkg
to
foo.spkg.tar.bz2
This way the package
On Oct 28, 2:15 am, Robert Bradshaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Oct 28, 2008, at 12:45 AM, Georg S. Weber wrote:
>
> > Hi,
>
> > often I'd like to "just have a quick look" into a spkg.
> > Then I copy it, rename it, tell Mac OS X that YES, I do want to rename
> > it,
> > and then I can open
Though I'm in favor of making things easier for the debian
process (both (a) to add more Sage users and (b) in the perhaps
wildly overly optimistic hope that one day Canonical will support Sage
somehow), I wonder if it is possible for someone sufficiently
skillful to write a script which crawls th
On Oct 28, 2008, at 12:45 AM, Georg S. Weber wrote:
> Hi,
>
> often I'd like to "just have a quick look" into a spkg.
> Then I copy it, rename it, tell Mac OS X that YES, I do want to rename
> it,
> and then I can open it with a mouse click, and change into the created
> directory.
> Finally I am
Hi,
often I'd like to "just have a quick look" into a spkg.
Then I copy it, rename it, tell Mac OS X that YES, I do want to rename
it,
and then I can open it with a mouse click, and change into the created
directory.
Finally I am able to scan the contents.
It would be nice to be quicker, and with
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 10:15 PM, Robert Bradshaw
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> \On Oct 27, 2008, at 9:41 PM, Tim Abbott wrote:
>
>> On Oct 28, 12:31 am, "Mike Hansen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Hi Tim,
>>>
>>> I assume that we would/should add some other marker to the
>>> filename to
>>> ide
\On Oct 27, 2008, at 9:41 PM, Tim Abbott wrote:
> On Oct 28, 12:31 am, "Mike Hansen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Hi Tim,
>>
>> I assume that we would/should add some other marker to the
>> filename to
>> identify it as the Sage version of that package rather than the
>> vanilla upstream sourc
Tim Abbott wrote:
[...]
> However, I think this is a good opportunity to discuss whether the merits
> of the .spkg extension for Sage packages. Fundamentally, we're using a
> nonstandard extension for a standard file type. This breaks various tools
> that try to infer file types from extensio
On Oct 28, 12:31 am, "Mike Hansen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Tim,
>
> I assume that we would/should add some other marker to the filename to
> identify it as the Sage version of that package rather than the
> vanilla upstream source.
Yeah, that's an issue I probably should have mentioned in
Hi Tim,
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 9:19 PM, Tim Abbott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So, I'd like to get people's opinions on moving to standard .tar.bz2
> extensions for spkg archives.
>
> If people think it's a good idea in principle, I'll work on generating a
> patch for gracefully handling the tr
31 matches
Mail list logo
