On May 15, 10:26 am, John H Palmieri <[email protected]> wrote: > On Monday, May 14, 2012 11:43:09 PM UTC-7, Keshav Kini wrote: > > > William Stein writes: > > > On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 12:31 AM, William Stein wrote: > > >> On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 5:13 PM, Jeroen Demeyer wrote: > > >>> I disagee when it comes to removing parts of a spkg. Several packages > > >>> include only partial sources. They contain the upstream tree but with > > >>> some files/directories (which Sage doesn't need) removed. I think > > this > > >>> is fine and should be allowed. > > > >> Indeed. Many spkg's are full of stuff we absolutely don't want to > > > > s/spkg/upstream sources (not spkg's!) > > > >> ship. They have windows binaries in them, java binaries, big pdf's, > > >> and other random stuff that wastes space and makes some people > > >> nervous. > > > OK, that's reasonable. I withdraw my objection, though it would still be > > nice if we had a better history of what is or was in the src/ > > directories of SPKGs, if it is no longer considered possible to > > determine this simply from the package version minus the patch number. > > Any changes like this are supposed to be documented in SPKG.txt, right? If > not, the spkg needs work.
You are correct, and preferably there should be a script included which does all this removal. -- 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
