>
>
> The pip ticket (#16479) is now positively reviewed. Should I open a
>> new one to make it standard?
>>
>
> Yes!
>
Alternately (or complementarily?) see #17155.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this gro
vdelecroix wrote:
> The pip ticket (#16479) is now positively reviewed. Should I open a
> new one to make it standard?
>
Yes!
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, s
On Thursday, August 7, 2014 10:48:11 AM UTC-7, vdelecroix wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> The pip ticket (#16479) is now positively reviewed. Should I open a
> new one to make it standard?
>
Yes. And I think it should switch to standard much more quickly than one
year because:
(1) it is not going t
Hello,
The pip ticket (#16479) is now positively reviewed. Should I open a
new one to make it standard?
Vincent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to s
2014-06-14 22:08 UTC+02:00, Robert Bradshaw :
> On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 1:13 AM, John Cremona
> wrote:
>> Question: would this make it possible to automatically have certain
>> python packages installed when Sage builds (after building its python
>> of course), perhaps from a list kept in a config
On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 1:13 AM, John Cremona wrote:
> Question: would this make it possible to automatically have certain
> python packages installed when Sage builds (after building its python
> of course), perhaps from a list kept in a config file in .sage/ ? I
> have a list of packages I use
Hello,
I just bumped into #8740 and remembered about this thread... this
ticket is about upgrading sqlalchemy 0.7.6 while 0.5.8 is the current
one. But the most recent version is 0.9.4. It does not make any sense
to release package for a library that evolves that fast. Instead the
following works
On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 10:22 AM, TB wrote:
> On 05/10/2014 08:00 PM, Martin Albrecht wrote:
>>
>> I was motivated by this thread to look into pip again. I like it, so +1
>> for
>> inclusion.
>>
>> We might e.g. drop SQLAlchemy in return,which would Sage smaller instead
>> of
>> bigger. It is triv
On 05/10/2014 08:00 PM, Martin Albrecht wrote:
I was motivated by this thread to look into pip again. I like it, so +1 for
inclusion.
We might e.g. drop SQLAlchemy in return,which would Sage smaller instead of
bigger. It is trivial to install using pip, it seems no code in the library
depends on
On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 10:00 AM, Martin Albrecht
wrote:
> I was motivated by this thread to look into pip again. I like it, so +1 for
> inclusion.
>
> We might e.g. drop SQLAlchemy in return,which would Sage smaller instead of
> bigger. It is trivial to install using pip, it seems no code in the
I was motivated by this thread to look into pip again. I like it, so +1 for
inclusion.
We might e.g. drop SQLAlchemy in return,which would Sage smaller instead of
bigger. It is trivial to install using pip, it seems no code in the library
depends on it, and the version we are shipping is very
I guess some package management would be an improvement from the
present situation. the fact it only works for python packages is a bit
half baked but it is a good step in my opinion.
As far as I can tell this means that once we have bootstrapped pip we
can simplify spkg-install for python package
Question: would this make it possible to automatically have certain
python packages installed when Sage builds (after building its python
of course), perhaps from a list kept in a config file in .sage/ ? I
have a list of packages I use a lot (for the lmfdb project), e.g.
pymongo, and it is a nuisa
Hi
On 24 April 2014 09:44, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
> On 2014-04-24 00:46, William Stein wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> There used to be a lot of confusion about which package manager /
>> installer one should use with python -- easy_install? setuptools?
>> etc.
>>
>> Now the choice is clear: pip -- A too
On 2014-04-24 00:46, William Stein wrote:
Hi,
There used to be a lot of confusion about which package manager /
installer one should use with python -- easy_install? setuptools?
etc.
Now the choice is clear: pip -- A tool for installing and managing
Python packages.
Does pip supersede setuptoo
On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 03:46:50PM -0700, William Stein wrote:
> [ ] Yes, make pip a standard part of Sage.
>
> [ ] No, pip does not belong in Sage.
Definitely +1 on any step toward using standard package managers, and
this sounds like a nice one. Now which tools is most appropriate, I
have n
[ ] Yes, make pip a standard part of Sage.
[ ] No, pip does not belong in Sage.
It depends: I would say Yes if the objective is to simplify the
install script (i.e. use pip for all our Python packages that are not
patched). Note that pip is very convenient and takes care of
versioning and dep
Hi,
There used to be a lot of confusion about which package manager /
installer one should use with python -- easy_install? setuptools?
etc.
Now the choice is clear: pip -- A tool for installing and managing
Python packages.
See https://pypi.python.org/pypi/pip
pip is amazing -- you can actual
18 matches
Mail list logo
