On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 3:09 PM, Dr. David Kirkby <david.kir...@onetel.net> wrote: > > William Stein wrote: >> 2009/11/14 Dr. David Kirkby <david.kir...@onetel.net>: > >>> I assume 'experimental' are less stable than 'optional'. IMHO, the user >>> downloading the file should be made aware it is experimental, and so one >>> way to >>> do that would be to have an option like >>> >>> sage --install-experimental some_possibly_broken_package >>> >> >> Yes, that's a very good idea. Alternatively, we could do the >> following in order to maintain the same API and not add yet another >> option to the Sage command: >> >> $ sage -i package_name >> The package package_name is experimental and may cause all matter of >> harm, not work, etc. Are you sure you want to proceed [yes or no]? >> >> The above message would happen if package_name is experimental and a >> certain environment variable isn't set. (I want the ability to >> non-interactively try to install all experimental packages.) This >> would better mirror what happens when one does "sage -upgrade". >> >> -- William > > That sounds fine. As you say, there needs to be a way to do a non-iterative > install, but your solution seems to combine that, along with a warning. > > I do not know if there would a be a way to list the experimental packages > separately, when you list optional packages installed.
sage -experimental lists all available/installed experimental packages. William --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to sage-devel-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URL: http://www.sagemath.org -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
