On Mon, 22 Dec 2008 at 06:13PM -0800, mabshoff wrote:
> If you check out http://wiki.sagemath.org/SPKG_Audit there is a loop
> hole, i.e. exceptions are allowed in certain circumstances. So far we
> have allowed this if Sage is in effect upstream for a component, i.e.
> eclib comes to mind.
Okay,
Dan Drake wrote:
>
> Also, what does "vanilla upstream" mean for SageTeX?
I figured that Sage would just package the current version from CTAN,
though obviously that would depend on what you wanted.
Jason
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send em
On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 6:13 PM, mabshoff wrote:
>
>
>
> On Dec 22, 6:05 pm, Dan Drake wrote:
>> On Mon, 22 Dec 2008 at 10:42AM -0800, mabshoff wrote:
>
> Hi Dan,
>
>
>
>> > Everything but src must be under revision control - unclean repo in
>> > the spkg leads to automatic "needs work" from my
On Dec 22, 6:05 pm, Dan Drake wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Dec 2008 at 10:42AM -0800, mabshoff wrote:
Hi Dan,
> > Everything but src must be under revision control - unclean repo in
> > the spkg leads to automatic "needs work" from my end at review time
>
> Does that mean src/ must not be under revi
On Mon, 22 Dec 2008 at 10:42AM -0800, mabshoff wrote:
> I am not aware of any documentation, but
>
>src/-- *vanilla* upstream
>SPKG.txt -- describes the spkg in wiki format, each new revision
> needs an updated changelog entry or an automatic "needs work" from my
> end at rev
Ok, William did add the info to
http://wiki.sagemath.org/SPKG_Audit
and I then cleaned it up some more. If anybody has some more info to
add or something to complain about or questions please let us know.
Once that text has matured a little more we should push it into the
Developers' manual p
On Dec 22, 11:28 am, "William Stein" wrote:
> > Yes, but reviews I do in that area contain detailed points which need
> > to be fixed.
>
> Making all spkg reviews have to be done by you since you're the only
> one who knows the format is bad for the busfactor of sage.
Well, I didn't do all
On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 11:11 AM, mabshoff wrote:
>
>
>
> On Dec 22, 11:05 am, "William Stein" wrote:
>> On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 10:42 AM, mabshoff wrote:
>>
>> > On Dec 22, 8:14 am, "William Stein" wrote:
>>
>> >
>>
>> >> Michael A. or anybody else -- does anybody know if the exact spkg
>> >
On Dec 22, 11:05 am, "William Stein" wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 10:42 AM, mabshoff wrote:
>
> > On Dec 22, 8:14 am, "William Stein" wrote:
>
> >
>
> >> Michael A. or anybody else -- does anybody know if the exact spkg
> >> format is written down anywhere. I definitely couldn't find it
On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 10:42 AM, mabshoff wrote:
>
>
>
> On Dec 22, 8:14 am, "William Stein" wrote:
>
>
>
>> Michael A. or anybody else -- does anybody know if the exact spkg
>> format is written down anywhere. I definitely couldn't find it with
>> 10 minutes of searching on the wiki, etc., a
On Dec 22, 8:14 am, "William Stein" wrote:
> Michael A. or anybody else -- does anybody know if the exact spkg
> format is written down anywhere. I definitely couldn't find it with
> 10 minutes of searching on the wiki, etc., and nobody responded to the
> above email with a link.
>
> Willia
On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 11:14 PM, Dan Drake wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 at 11:40PM -0800, William Stein wrote:
>> Anyway, the best thing to do is to look at one that is in
>> spkg/standard/ and copy the format:
>>
>>src/-- most of your stuff goes in this directory
>>SPKG.txt
On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 at 11:40PM -0800, William Stein wrote:
> Based on all the +1's it is now an optional spkg. Now everybody can
> trivially install it by doing
>
>sage -i sagetex-2.0
>
> Can you post to sage-devel in one month about moving this from
> optional to standard, after more people
On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 3:52 AM, Dan Drake wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> The SageTeX package needs two basic pieces to work: a pure Python
> module, and a pure LaTeX style file. Since a Sage installation is
> necessary for either of those pieces to be useful, it seems like it
> would be wise to include
On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 at 08:40AM -0500, David Joyner wrote:
> I think the basic idea has been that spkg's are more-or-less the same
> as an upstream tarball, so in reality anyone can create one from the
> upstream distribution. Is this a different case, in that you created
> the spkg from various pie
On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 at 05:27AM -0800, mhampton wrote:
> Would this be optional at first? What I think you are saying is that
> this is so lightweight that it should just become standard. I am in
> favor either way.
I don't mind either way. The total thing is under 500K. Being an
optional package
On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 at 01:26PM +, Willem Jan Palenstijn wrote:
> If they are LaTeX-files, they should go into .../texmf/tex/latex/sagetex .
To be fully TDS compliant, I'd need at least three or four directories;
there's the style file, documentation PDFs, some useful extra Python
scripts, orig
I find SageTeX very useful, and it seems popular among those posting
to sage-support. Subject to "appropriateness" of the way it is
included in the distribution, I'm in favor of adding anything that
will make it easier for others to locate and use.
On Dec 18, 3:52 am, Dan Drake wrote:
> Hello a
On Dec 18, 12:52 pm, Dan Drake wrote:
> So, should we include SageTeX as a spkg?
+1 from me, too.
One thing i want to add: when i started to edit the old embed_latex
code, i had the "vision" to make this a command line switch of sage
itself. i.e.
$ sage -tex file.tex
I don't know how far we ar
David Joyner wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 6:52 AM, Dan Drake wrote:
>> Hello all,
>>
>> The SageTeX package needs two basic pieces to work: a pure Python
>> module, and a pure LaTeX style file. Since a Sage installation is
>> necessary for either of those pieces to be useful, it seems like it
Dan Drake wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> So, should we include SageTeX as a spkg?
+1
I have already used sagetex a lot of times and it is a minor annoyance
that I have to copy the sagetex.py file into every directory. From my
conversations with non-Sage users, Sagetex is one of the very big
sell
On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 6:52 AM, Dan Drake wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> The SageTeX package needs two basic pieces to work: a pure Python
> module, and a pure LaTeX style file. Since a Sage installation is
> necessary for either of those pieces to be useful, it seems like it
> would be wise to include
+1
Would this be optional at first? What I think you are saying is that
this is so lightweight that it should just become standard. I am in
favor either way.
-M. Hampton
On Dec 18, 5:52 am, Dan Drake wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> The SageTeX package needs two basic pieces to work: a pure Python
> m
On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 08:52:12PM +0900, Dan Drake wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> The SageTeX package needs two basic pieces to work: a pure Python
> module, and a pure LaTeX style file. Since a Sage installation is
> necessary for either of those pieces to be useful, it seems like it
> would be wise t
24 matches
Mail list logo
