On 03/01/12 23:43, Keshav Kini wrote: > > I don't understand. Why would it be *faster* to do version bumps if > sage-on-gentoo gets into Gentoo proper? Overlays are always more nimble > than the Gentoo tree, as far as I can see.
If we're to distribute sage via source, we need some way for users to build all of the prerequisites. I think prefix is the way to do that, and prefix uses the portage tree, so it's important that nothing in the portage tree breaks sage. If sage-4.8 is in the official portage tree, then other Gentoo devs won't commit something that breaks it. For example, if sage-4.8 depends on sys-devel/gcc=4.5.3, the gcc maintainer won't just remove that version while sage-4.8 is in portage. > sage-on-gentoo being an overlay also makes it easier to create a Prefix > distribution for Sage, I think. Eventually the Prefix distribution's > portage tree would be the main effort, and sage-on-gentoo would be an > adaptation of it as an overlay for users who are running Gentoo on the > top level of their system. > > Making sage-on-gentoo a part of Gentoo proper ties it too strongly to > the Gentoo distribution, IMO. Certainly it is a good thing to push as > many ebuilds from sage-on-gentoo to Gentoo as possible, but we should > still maintain our own collection of ebuilds for Sage if we want to go > forward with Prefix, no? I think we would do all of our development on github in an overlay, but then commit releases back to portage. That would ensure that all of our dependencies keep working for the lifetime of the release. -- 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
