On Mon, Apr 03, 2017 at 05:48:30PM +1200, François Bissey wrote:
> I am starting this debate because of discussion I had earlier
> in #22670. It was pointed out to me that there was no policy
> of avoiding `sage.misc.package` and I would very much want one.
>From following the many discussions on
> I welcome the work on the Conda port because it will allow just
that in the medium term. You could replace the whole sage packaging
with Conda and a few scripts to set things up. Once you do that
sage.misc.package should die (and please do not replace it by calls
to Conda).
FYI, I have a branch
> On 5/04/2017, at 11:25, Nils Bruin wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, April 4, 2017 at 4:01:50 PM UTC-7, François wrote:
>
> With the current system you could install and then remove
> some essential files manually and the doctesting framework
> would still try to use it. It is installed according to t
On Tuesday, April 4, 2017 at 4:01:50 PM UTC-7, François wrote:
>
>
> With the current system you could install and then remove
> some essential files manually and the doctesting framework
> would still try to use it. It is installed according to the
> packaging system after all. runtime testing
> On 5/04/2017, at 10:41, Nils Bruin wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, April 4, 2017 at 2:24:52 PM UTC-7, François wrote:
> Let’s be clear, I could ship a list of possible
> optional packages supported in sage-on-gentoo
> but any checking of package availability would
> have to go through the the distri
On Tuesday, April 4, 2017 at 2:24:52 PM UTC-7, François wrote:
>
> Let’s be clear, I could ship a list of possible
> optional packages supported in sage-on-gentoo
> but any checking of package availability would
> have to go through the the distribution package
> manager.
>
> Or through the sa
> On 5/04/2017, at 08:42, Nils Bruin wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, April 4, 2017 at 1:00:31 PM UTC-7, François wrote:
> (2) while being just one use, is probably not replaceable.
> Not in this form at the very least.
>
> How can one get the appropriate information in sage-on-gentoo? If we compare
>
On Tuesday, April 4, 2017 at 1:00:31 PM UTC-7, François wrote:
>
> (2) while being just one use, is probably not replaceable.
> Not in this form at the very least.
>
How can one get the appropriate information in sage-on-gentoo? If we
compare the mechanisms that work in the different scenarios
> On 5/04/2017, at 01:12, kcrisman wrote:
>
>
> I am starting this debate because of discussion I had earlier
> in #22670. It was pointed out to me that there was no policy
> of avoiding `sage.misc.package` and I would very much want one.
>
>
> This seems very reasonable, given how much wo
Hi all,
This is a rare rant cross-posted to sage-packaging about
one of the annoyance faced by the people packaging sage
and not using sage's packaging system.
The functions found in `sage.misc.package` are a result
of the fact that sagemath and its development is closely
linked to its own packa
10 matches
Mail list logo
