On 2010-11-13 19:28, Dr. David Kirkby wrote: > Actually, I realised I had in fact made a trac ticket for it. > > http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/9418 > > Here's the comment from William that he is happy for this package to be > added, despite he personally voted -1 for it > > https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel/msg/973161fbcc09b7e6?hl=en
Thank for the link, I just read the whole thread. I saw the various suggestions and simply using "patch" gets a big +1 from me. It is very easy to implement and allows for: * patching files depending on the system * patching multiple files with one diff * patching the same file with multiple diffs * easily update a spkg to a new upstream version * easily add a new patch to a spkg * not being forced to update any spkgs, we can keep the old system if we want (if there is a reason to do that for a particular spkg). (As far as I can tell, none of the other proposals have all these properties.) Maybe using "patch" is not the optimal solution, but it would certainly be a strict improvement to what we have now. The reason William was against "patch" is the following: > We should never, ever add any new packages to sage without being > very, very careful first. Every package added to sage increases later > porting work, maintenance work, etc. forever. This is particularly a > concern to *me*, since some of you come and go, but I'll be dealing > with sage pretty much forever. But I agree with David Kirkby that "patch" is such a trivial spkg that this should not be a big concern. Jeroen. -- 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
