Re: [sage-devel] Re: Should we ship vanilla upstream tarballs or stripped-down ones?

2014-11-05 Thread Robert Bradshaw
On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 5:27 AM, kcrisman kcris...@gmail.com wrote: IMHO we should only modify upstream tarballs if we have to (e.g. strip out non-free parts). The upstream tarballs are cached, so its just a one-time download anyways. There are people who have a very bad band-with.

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Should we ship vanilla upstream tarballs or stripped-down ones?

2014-11-05 Thread John Cremona
On 5 November 2014 09:20, Robert Bradshaw rober...@math.washington.edu wrote: On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 5:27 AM, kcrisman kcris...@gmail.com wrote: IMHO we should only modify upstream tarballs if we have to (e.g. strip out non-free parts). The upstream tarballs are cached, so its just a

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Should we ship vanilla upstream tarballs or stripped-down ones?

2014-11-05 Thread Thierry
Hi, On Wed, Nov 05, 2014 at 01:20:26AM -0800, Robert Bradshaw wrote: On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 5:27 AM, kcrisman kcris...@gmail.com wrote: IMHO we should only modify upstream tarballs if we have to (e.g. strip out non-free parts). The upstream tarballs are cached, so its just a

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Should we ship vanilla upstream tarballs or stripped-down ones?

2014-11-05 Thread kcrisman
There are people who have a very bad band-with. In my case, it's fine when I am at university. But other than that, I only have a mobile internet stick, for which 50MB more or less really matters. +1 with this point of view. However, when lacking good internet

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Should we ship vanilla upstream tarballs or stripped-down ones?

2014-11-05 Thread Volker Braun
There is already a make download. If you want you can add a make download-more (or so) to also download popular optional packages... On Wednesday, November 5, 2014 1:13:40 PM UTC, kcrisman wrote: There are people who have a very bad band-with. In my case, it's fine when I am at

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Should we ship vanilla upstream tarballs or stripped-down ones?

2014-11-05 Thread Jean-Pierre Flori
On Wednesday, November 5, 2014 2:17:29 PM UTC+1, Volker Braun wrote: There is already a make download. If you want you can add a make download-more (or so) to also download popular optional packages... Doesn't make download already download everything? Or was it fixed/changed? -- You

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Should we ship vanilla upstream tarballs or stripped-down ones?

2014-11-05 Thread Thierry
On Wed, Nov 05, 2014 at 05:22:17AM -0800, Jean-Pierre Flori wrote: On Wednesday, November 5, 2014 2:17:29 PM UTC+1, Volker Braun wrote: There is already a make download. If you want you can add a make download-more (or so) to also download popular optional packages... I did not know

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Should we ship vanilla upstream tarballs or stripped-down ones?

2014-11-05 Thread Jean-Pierre Flori
On Wednesday, November 5, 2014 2:39:15 PM UTC+1, Thierry (sage-googlesucks@xxx) wrote: On Wed, Nov 05, 2014 at 05:22:17AM -0800, Jean-Pierre Flori wrote: On Wednesday, November 5, 2014 2:17:29 PM UTC+1, Volker Braun wrote: There is already a make download. If you want you can

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Should we ship vanilla upstream tarballs or stripped-down ones?

2014-11-05 Thread Volker Braun
See also http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/15642 On Wednesday, November 5, 2014 1:39:15 PM UTC, Thierry (sage-googlesucks@xxx) wrote: On Wed, Nov 05, 2014 at 05:22:17AM -0800, Jean-Pierre Flori wrote: On Wednesday, November 5, 2014 2:17:29 PM UTC+1, Volker Braun wrote: There is

[sage-devel] Re: Should we ship vanilla upstream tarballs or stripped-down ones?

2014-10-31 Thread Volker Braun
IMHO we should only modify upstream tarballs if we have to (e.g. strip out non-free parts). The upstream tarballs are cached, so its just a one-time download anyways. On Friday, October 31, 2014 9:54:56 AM UTC, Jean-Pierre Flori wrote: Dear all, Should we go on stripping down upstream

[sage-devel] Re: Should we ship vanilla upstream tarballs or stripped-down ones?

2014-10-31 Thread Simon King
Hi Volker, On 2014-10-31, Volker Braun vbraun.n...@gmail.com wrote: --=_Part_1546_392576408.1414752441684 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 IMHO we should only modify upstream tarballs if we have to (e.g. strip out non-free parts). The upstream tarballs are cached, so its just a

[sage-devel] Re: Should we ship vanilla upstream tarballs or stripped-down ones?

2014-10-31 Thread kcrisman
IMHO we should only modify upstream tarballs if we have to (e.g. strip out non-free parts). The upstream tarballs are cached, so its just a one-time download anyways. There are people who have a very bad band-with. In my case, it's fine when I am at university. But other

[sage-devel] Re: Should we ship vanilla upstream tarballs or stripped-down ones?

2014-10-31 Thread Volker Braun
Oh come on, cry me a river. The average top-1000 web page is well over a megabyte nowadays. A one-time download of 50mb is a minor convenience at best. We are talking about the equivalent of maybe 30 page visits. On Friday, October 31, 2014 11:48:47 AM UTC, Simon King wrote: Hi Volker,

[sage-devel] Re: Should we ship vanilla upstream tarballs or stripped-down ones?

2014-10-31 Thread Travis Scrimshaw
However (local) caching is used in those cases as well, so it's only a pain the first time you visit a website. The router to where I work in my home setup is not shabby, but it's still took some 10 minutes to download GCC. For a while I thought something had stalled. 86 MB to 36 MB is a huge

[sage-devel] Re: Should we ship vanilla upstream tarballs or stripped-down ones?

2014-10-31 Thread Volker Braun
OMG you had to wait 10 minutes instead of 4 minutes On Friday, October 31, 2014 2:59:52 PM UTC, Travis Scrimshaw wrote: However (local) caching is used in those cases as well, so it's only a pain the first time you visit a website. The router to where I work in my home setup is not