On Mon, Aug 06, 2012 at 01:11:25AM +0200, Andrés Goens wrote: > > if you work on upstream, you probably know if its better to package > > flint2. iirc the source repos are disjoint, and i didn't try. in that > > case the repo on tool would be obsolete. > > > > I've looked at the git repo, but I'm afraid you are right. Are you guys > trying to get sage 4.7 into debian first, or is it just that one because it > was the release at the time you did that?
haven't tried to get it into debian. just hacked together proof-of-concept packages and built sage-4.7 (later 5.0) on top of it. > The current sage (5.2) also uses a flint 1.*, but work is being done on > sage to upgrade to flint 2.* : > http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/12173 that would mean to apply about 15 patches ahead of sage5.1.... > I really don't know much about flint 1, since flint 2 is a complete > rewrite. However, if sage has yet to upgrade to flint 2, it might > still be worthwhile packaging the 1.* version in order to package a > current sage release. even though in the future we would have to go > to flint2. While I think flint2 would be easier for me to help, if > you guys think flint1 is more of a priority at the moment, I would > also volunteer to try and help with it. agreed. can you estimate how much work needs to be done for flint1? if flint2 has a useable build system, patching sage for flint2 (or just waiting) might be an option. regards felix -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
