I'd rathet discuss this in the to be openedReal Soon Now) proposal for implementation.
-- Emmanuel Charpentier Le mercredi 25 octobre 2017 11:57:13 UTC+2, Erik Bray a écrit : > > (Sorry for the multiple replies--there are just a lot of disparate > issues touched on in this message that I think would be confusing to > reply to all at once). > > On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 8:58 PM, Emmanuel Charpentier > <[email protected] <javascript:>> wrote: > > This point of view is of course incompatible with the result of the > vote. > > However, I think that it could be easy to maintain a set of patches > allowing > > such a compilation without SSL. This set of patches could live in a git > > branch (say "anchorite" (a solitary kind of sage)) of our tree, and > updated > > to create releases (in sync with Sage "official" releases ?) and related > > tarballs and binaries. Of course, I emphatically DON'T volunteer for > this > > maintenance... > > a) I don't think the point of view (that it should be possible to > build Sage without SSL support) is incompatible with the vote. The > vote was over whether or not to include OpenSSL as an spkg (optional > or otherwise). It could still be required by default, but disabled by > a configure option, for example, if needed. In fact, as we've > repeatedly discussed, the *only* package in Sage that won't compile if > it doesn't find OpenSSL (actually libcurl with SSL support, > technically) is R. So in practice the implementation might be > something like: > > a) Check for OpenSSL in Sage's configure > b) If not found, use Sage's OpenSSL spkg > > But part b) could also hypothetically be disabled by a configure flag, > if really necessary, *except* for the fact that then the R build will > fail. This takes us to the issue of "a set of patches" (in reality > there is only a singular patch, the patch to R's configure to allow it > to proceed without an SSL-enabled libcurl). > > I've repeatedly said I'd be willing to take the argument about this to > R-devel (so I can get out of your hair about it :) But I don't think > it's all that big a deal either. In fact, the issue of building R > could also be resolved entirely without a patch by just tricking it > into thinking it has the libcurl it's looking for. I wouldn't > recommend this approach, but it can certainly be done even without > patching :) > > > It has been noted that we should bill Apple for all the time we wasted > on > > maintaining Sage on their platform notwithstanding the difficulties > posed by > > the oddities of their development tools. > > > > While applauding the idea, I am skeptical about its implementability. > > Comments ? > > TBH Microsoft has a better track record these days of funding open > source software than Apple does :) > > Best, > Erik > -- 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.
