On Sat, Jul 3, 2010 at 11:30 AM, William Stein wrote:
> On Saturday, July 3, 2010, Volker Braun wrote:
>> On Jul 3, 4:54 pm, Mike Hansen wrote:
>>> 1) The src/ directory needs be under Mercurial version control. This
>>> would increase the size of the spkgs by quite a bit.
>>
>> But you don't n
On Sat, Jul 3, 2010 at 11:30 AM, William Stein wrote:
>>> 2) Many patches only need to be applied conditionally based on the
>>> runtime environment.
>>
>> I would argue that such patches are fundamentally flawed as they can
>> never become part of upstream. How hard is it to add an #ifdef bracket
On Saturday, July 3, 2010, Volker Braun wrote:
> On Jul 3, 4:54 pm, Mike Hansen wrote:
>> 1) The src/ directory needs be under Mercurial version control. This
>> would increase the size of the spkgs by quite a bit.
>
> But you don't need to add all of src/. In fact, you could keep src
> in .hgig
On 07/ 3/10 05:49 AM, William Stein wrote:
Hi,
I still vote -1 to this, and think it is possible to get around using
patch at runtime.
Nonetheless, I am ok with this proposal going forward, because it
clearly received a lot of support from most developers who commented.
William
OK
http://tra
On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 9:49 PM, William Stein wrote:
> I still vote -1 to this, and think it is possible to get around using
> patch at runtime.
If we can do it and it's not too awkward, then that's great. But, I
personally am not sure how to implement it well. With using patch,
it's just very
Hi,
I still vote -1 to this, and think it is possible to get around using
patch at runtime.
Nonetheless, I am ok with this proposal going forward, because it
clearly received a lot of support from most developers who commented.
William
On Friday, July 2, 2010, Mike Hansen wrote:
> On Fri, Jul
I voted +1 for the idea of using patches instead of edited version of
source files, which everyone seems to agree on. I thought from
earlier postings that this requires having the patch function
installed, so voted in favour. But now it is quite clear that this is
*not* necessary, so I withdraw t
I'm missing something. What's broken, and why do you want to fix it?
On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 3:18 AM, David Kirkby wrote:
> I propose that we make GNU patch a standard package, so that patches
> to Sage can be made in a more sensible manner than using 'cp' as now.
> (There's no point in 'patch' b
+1
-Ivan
On Jul 1, 2010, at 5:18 AM, David Kirkby wrote:
> I propose that we make GNU patch a standard package, so that patches
> to Sage can be made in a more sensible manner than using 'cp' as now.
> (There's no point in 'patch' being optional at all, as it would be
> needed when building Sage
+1 for the convincing reasons cited (and similar to why Sage includes
bzip2), unless there are downsides which I have not thought of.
John
On 1 July 2010 12:00, François Bissey wrote:
>> I propose that we make GNU patch a standard package, so that patches
>> to Sage can be made in a more sensib
> I propose that we make GNU patch a standard package, so that patches
> to Sage can be made in a more sensible manner than using 'cp' as now.
> (There's no point in 'patch' being optional at all, as it would be
> needed when building Sage).
>
> For
> * It is small - the source code is about 240
I propose that we make GNU patch a standard package, so that patches
to Sage can be made in a more sensible manner than using 'cp' as now.
(There's no point in 'patch' being optional at all, as it would be
needed when building Sage).
For
* It is small - the source code is about 240 KB, so a Sage
12 matches
Mail list logo
