On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 6:10 PM, Jeroen Demeyer <[email protected]> wrote: > After a quick look at conda, one major difference is that its focus is > really on binary packages. It might not be easy to support the Sage "build > from source" model in conda.
Right... > Of course, we could build binary conda packages for Sage, but that's not the > same as using conda as package manager within Sage. Could you or someone point me to some more resources as to how this is used in practice? As I see it the main use cases are somewhat limited (though important!) such as rebuilding your BLAS library and anything that depends on it. Although this is mostly a developer activity it's not solely a developer activity either. When one rebuilds a package in the Sage source tree it still gets installed into $SAGE_LOCAL--is that all that different then? The only difference that I see is skipping a step of packing into a tarball and compressing. It's a fairly trivial intermediate step, and one that could probably be cut out entirely if the install target is specified at build time. I guess more generally what I'm interested to learn more about is what the typical development workflow is of people who work regularly on Sage... -- 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
