On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 6:20 AM, Georg S. Weber
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Oops,
> several misunderstandings, and perhaps on my side, too.
>
> First of all: my intention is to lower the current overall complexity,
> certainly not to increase it ...
>
> My understanding is that "everything" that
Oops,
several misunderstandings, and perhaps on my side, too.
First of all: my intention is to lower the current overall complexity,
certainly not to increase it ...
My understanding is that "everything" that a new spkg "foo" adds to
the current Sage installation
that it is added too, will be do
I like this idea but it provides another layer of complexity. What if
someone simply
forgets to add a license subdirectory? Does that make their package invalid
or does sage -i foo.spkg fail?
In the case of gap_packages*, a number of Gap packages are bundled,
with varying
licenses (mostly GPL but
