> In the download page, we offer binaries for red hat 5.3 (+4 years old) > over itanium architecture. The version of Sage is 5.0.1 (+2 years old). > > Is it really useful to keep it? Are there any actual downloads? > > I would say that, if we can support Fedora over Itanium (that is, if we > have a buildbot that can build and test each release), then we should keep > updated versions. If we don't have that buildot anymore, we should drop > that kind of support. > > Similar situation (in the sense of offering only old versions of Sage, > mostly 5.13) appears in the linux over arm and sparc, solaris over x86 and > OSX over powerpc. > > So, can we update those binaries? And if we can't, should we just drop > them? >
It's a good question, but I guess the question is whether the various mirrors *mind* us keeping those binaries there. Such versions of Sage are better than not having any at all for such folks. Sometimes the upgrade process is slow or impossible for people, and an advantage of open source is we can try to keep things available, rather than the policy of "latest version or no version". In fact, for most of these the only real problem for providing newer binaries is that we don't have reliable buildbots; in some cases maybe there are other issues (e.g., OS X PPC fails only for rpy2, I *could* make a binary even but it would have that problem). -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
