On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 12:24 PM, Ronald van Haren <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 6:43 PM, Thomas Dziedzic <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 6:19 AM, Xyne <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> Sven-Hendrik Haase wrote: > >> > >> > If I have understood your correctly, you want sage to provide python > and > >> > all its other components as if they were vanilla? > >> > >> No... > >> > >> Peter Lewis wrote: > >> > >> > It may be that there are a few core components (however we define > that) > >> like > >> > maxima or octave that can be "provided"... > >> > >> This is mostly what I had in mind. Even with modifications, some of the > >> component packages such as maxima or octave should fulfill most > >> dependencies of packages that require them and could thus be used > >> instead of the vanilla packages by users who require Sage. Even if it > >> only provides a few, it would still help offset the cost of installing > >> the package. > >> > >> I wrote 'to have the package "provide" as many of its components as > >> possible (if any)' *because* I doubt that most of them can be exposed. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> Loui Chang wrote: > >> > >> > It seems pretty ridiculous that they wouldn't have made provisions to > >> > use a system python rather than a bundled one. I maintain brlcad which > >> > bundles tcl/tk, boost, and a host of other libs but they have a proper > >> > build system which can check for and use system libs. Some of the libs > >> > are more obscure and probably should be bundled. I can imagine the > same > >> > situation would occur with sage-mathematics. I'm left wondering why > sage > >> > can't get their modifications incorporated upstream. > >> > > >> > I don't imagine using sage any time soon, but I can imagine users > being > >> > a little peeved if they required virtually two installations of python > - > >> > or any other major package. > >> > >> It *is* ridiculous. The upstream developers either think that "disk is > >> cheap" and don't care, or they think that Sage is the be-all-end-all > >> mathematics package and that no one would ever need any of the vanilla > >> components. > >> > >> That's just the way it is though and users of Sage know this. Aside > >> from incessantly nagging upstream, there is nothing that can be done > >> about it, which is why we're left with working around the duplication. > >> > >> > >> Regards, > >> Xyne > >> > > > > If anyone has any other comments or pressing issues, please respond now. > I > > will wait another day before moving it into community. > > > > nah, just in case you are going to use provides, make sure that > existing frontends work with it and such. > > Ronald > I'm not going to use provides because they are sage's internal versions. Some are outdated or patched and using them independently is not upstream's intentions.
