On 03/08/16 00:22, Erik Bray wrote:
Ah, I see what you're saying here. Though in that case I would think
one wouldn't want to rely on SAGE_LOCAL at all.
Instead it might be nice if each spkg came with a Python-based way to
check for it (those checks can and should be cached as well).
Indeed, s
On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 11:23 AM, Francois Bissey
wrote:
> The problem is sage’s packaging system is integrated in sage itself at some
> level. Although there has been some decoupling lately.
>
> The problem for downstream like me is that I don’t and can’t rely on sage’s
> packaging system. Inside
The problem is sage’s packaging system is integrated in sage itself at some
level. Although there has been some decoupling lately.
The problem for downstream like me is that I don’t and can’t rely on sage’s
packaging system. Inside sage there is the possibility of using optional
component. Often
Sorry, apparently I am late to the patch by few minutes thanks for the
pointers though, I'll keep surfing trac for related work in progress.
As for gcc on my machine being reinstalled by sage I guess I do have an old
version: 4.7
Thanks
S.
* Jeroen Demeyer [2016-03-04 11:44:09]:
> On 2016-0
On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 8:14 PM, Francois Bissey
wrote:
> I will hopefully have a bit of forum at sage days 77. I’ll probably want to
> concentrate on `is_package_installed` considered harmful.
Maybe I'm premature in asking if this is something you want to save
for SD77, but could you expand on th
On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 3:01 PM, kcrisman wrote:
>>
>>
>> The problem, as I see it, is that Sage has built up over the years its
>> own ad-hoc packaging system. This is actually really cool, because
>> it's what's allowed Sage to be installable on a wide range of
>> platforms! I think this happen
> On 5/03/2016, at 07:23, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
>
> On 03/04/2016 09:01 AM, kcrisman wrote:
>>
>>
>>The problem, as I see it, is that Sage has built up over the years its
>>own ad-hoc packaging system. This is actually really cool, because
>>it's what's allowed Sage to be instal
On 03/04/2016 09:01 AM, kcrisman wrote:
>
>
> The problem, as I see it, is that Sage has built up over the years its
> own ad-hoc packaging system. This is actually really cool, because
> it's what's allowed Sage to be installable on a wide range of
> platforms! I think this hap
>
>
>
> The problem, as I see it, is that Sage has built up over the years its
> own ad-hoc packaging system. This is actually really cool, because
> it's what's allowed Sage to be installable on a wide range of
> platforms! I think this happened sort of organically over time, as
> various d
On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 11:21 AM, Salvatore Stella wrote:
> Dear All,
> I have a philosophical question concerning how we implement things in sage.
> More precisely I am concerned on how we deal with external packages.
>
> Right now we implement our own package management system and we install
> (a
On 2016-03-04 11:21, Salvatore Stella wrote:
especially when you consider that
among the duplicated things there are some heavy package to compile like
gcc
GCC is only installed if needed. If Sage installs GCC, it must be that
your system GCC is either outdated of incomplete (missing Fortran?).
Dear All,
I have a philosophical question concerning how we implement things in sage.
More precisely I am concerned on how we deal with external packages.
Right now we implement our own package management system and we install
(almost) all our dependencies under whichever prefix the user gives to
12 matches
Mail list logo
