Le mercredi 29 février, Jan Groenewald a écrit: > Hi > > On 29 February 2012 22:21, Julien Puydt <julien.pu...@laposte.net> > wrote: > > > If it only built what it *needs to build*, not what it *needs*, then > > there would be a gain too. Let me stress again : I have some of the > > things it needs already, so it could just use it. > > > > > I was under the impression... > > Building Sage Just Works because it insists on such tightly coupled > versions of its components. This is why the debianization of Sage was > such a hard project. It is probably a good (very very long) long term > goal though.
That is why in all serious systems I know, package dependencies are versioned. Tightly if needed. And yes, it is a long term goal. But it's worthy. > That is why I want to not-debianize sage, but to make a from-source > version of Sage in a PPA for Ubuntu, containing all the > Sage-sanctioned components. How many distributions have sage? [by distribution, I mean linux distributions, but also the various BSD variants] > The weaker but valid object is wasted space, time, and cpu in > building, but the larger objection is security. Sage now has to watch > the security updates for each component, and so will not get into > Debian as a single from-source build, only into a PPA. And when two packages have bad interactions, it becomes the sage developpers problem. And when a sage package has a bad interaction with a system piece of code, then that's a sage developper problem too. [I'm thinking very specifically about the termcap issues.] Snark on #sagemath -- 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
