2009/12/4 Robert Bradshaw <rober...@math.washington.edu>:
> On Dec 4, 2009, at 2:27 PM, Dr. David Kirkby wrote:
>
>> It would appear when creating a binary for Sage, one would normally
>> put
>> something like
>>
>> sage -bdist 4.1.2-Solaris
>>
>> or similar to create a binary for Solaris of version 4.1.2 of Sage.
>>
>> It would be relatively easy to get Sage to report the version
>> number, so one
>> does not have to specify that. I'd suggest replacing the
>>
>> sage -c "print Sage Works"
>>
>> with something that prints the version number, then use that in the
>> script.
>>
>> Not only does it save typing 5 characters, but it is more foolproof,
>> as one
>> can't accidentally create a binary with the wrong version number.
>>
>> Comments?
>
> +1
-1
One drawback is that it makes the input to sdist inconsistent with the
input to bdist, e.g.,
sage -sdist 4.1.2-solaris
sage -bdist solaris
The second drawback is that one might want to make a binary
distribution, and not label it with a version number, or label it with
a version that properly reflects what you've added to it. E.g.,:
(a) I download sage-4.1.2.
(b) I change a bunch of crap.
(c) I want to make a binary to distribute to my friends, so I do this:
sage -bdist 4.1.2mod-solaris
Or, I'm doing something internally and do
sage -bdist internal_version
By forcing the version number at the front, you're making "sage
-bdist" significantly less flexible and breaking a nice symmetry
between bdist and sdist.
-- 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
