>
>
> That in this case is a Python script that tries to install everything
> to make the heavily enhanced version of Sage that people get when they
>
BTW, a bit OT but any enhancements there that could be reported downstream
to "Sage proper"? (I mean without someone doing a lot of digging fo
On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 10:35 AM, kcrisman wrote:
>> >
>> > If you ever get tired of raising the issue, maybe you could try doing
>> > something about it.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> I think in this case the defensive is understandable.
>
>>
>> I have done things about the issues with optional packages.
>> Fo
>
> >
> > If you ever get tired of raising the issue, maybe you could try doing
> > something about it.
>
>
>
I think in this case the defensive is understandable.
> I have done things about the issues with optional packages.
> For example, I wrote
>
> https://github.com/sagemathi
On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 11:41 PM, Nathann Cohen wrote:
>> Side question -- Is anything guaranteed to build all optional
>> packages? What's the current status of testing them? I keep raising
>> this issue...
>
>
> If you ever get tired of raising the issue, maybe you could try doing
> something
On Friday, 17 April 2015 15:50:10 UTC+1, kcrisman wrote:
>
>
> Side question -- Is anything guaranteed to build all optional
>>> packages? What's the current status of testing them? I keep raising
>>> this issue...
>>>
>>
>> If you ever get tired of raising the issue, maybe you could try do
> Side question -- Is anything guaranteed to build all optional
>> packages? What's the current status of testing them? I keep raising
>> this issue...
>>
>
> If you ever get tired of raising the issue, maybe you could try doing
> something about it.
>
Until we have the infrastructure of
But we digressed. Does anyone has an opinion about my original
question?
Thanks,
Dima
On Friday, 17 April 2015 07:41:02 UTC+1, Nathann Cohen wrote:
>
> Side question -- Is anything guaranteed to build all optional
>> packages? What's the current status of testing them? I keep raising
>> this
>
> Side question -- Is anything guaranteed to build all optional
> packages? What's the current status of testing them? I keep raising
> this issue...
>
If you ever get tired of raising the issue, maybe you could try doing
something about it.
Nathann
--
You received this message becau
On Thursday, 16 April 2015 18:12:16 UTC+1, William wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 9:49 AM, Dima Pasechnik > wrote:
> > It seems to me that binary distributions are not guaranteed to be able
> to
> > build some optional packages.
>
> Side question -- Is anything guaranteed to build all op
On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 9:49 AM, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
> It seems to me that binary distributions are not guaranteed to be able to
> build some optional packages.
Side question -- Is anything guaranteed to build all optional
packages? What's the current status of testing them? I keep raising
t
It seems to me that binary distributions are not guaranteed to be able to
build some optional packages.
There were numerous reports on sage-support, and here is another example:
http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/18198
However, reading http://sagemath.org/doc/installation/quick-guide.html
gives you
11 matches
Mail list logo
