This is just my opinion, but isn't the name SPKG (SAGE package) already quite specialised?
On Sep 27, 11:13 pm, Ondrej Certik <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > in Femhub (http://femhub.org) I wrote a new buildsystem from scratch > using Python, so far it's a simple Python script: > > http://github.com/hpfem/femhub/blob/master/spkg/base/femhub-run > > and it is (so far) fully compatible with Sage in the sense that any > Sage package (should) install in Femhub and any Femhub package should > install in Sage. (The goals of the Python based buildsystem is to > support dependencies, as well as make it easier to improve it and make > changes to it.) > > Very common question that gets asked on our group meetings (probably 4 > or 5 times already) is why we use SAGE_ROOT and SAGE_LOCAL in all our > packages, and not something more project neutral, like > SPKG_ROOT/SPKG_LOCAL. My answer to that is always: well, we want to > stay compatible with Sage. Just like Ubuntu also uses the "debian" > directory in every single Ubuntu package. > > Nevertheless, what is the opinion in the Sage community to the > following proposal: > > 1) support SPKG_ROOT and SPKG_LOCAL in the Sage buildsystem (and would > be equivalent to SAGE_LOCAL, SAGE_ROOT) > > 2) deprecate SAGE_ROOT/LOCAL, but keep it in the buildsystem, so that > old packages still build > > I am myself +0 to that, it would fix some problems, it would create > some new ones. But I would like to know what people think about this. > > Ondrej -- To post to this group, send an email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URL: http://www.sagemath.org
