On Thursday, January 23, 2014 12:07:44 PM UTC+1, John Cremona wrote: > > Yes, I was told that upstream tarballs should not contain any Sage > changes, those should be done via patches in the install script. And > hence upstream tarballs should not have any .p in them. I did that > wrongly when I redid the database_stein_watkins optional spkgs for git > and was told to change it by Jeroen. > Sure, I definitely agree about not "patching" upstream tarballs, except that some "upstream" tarballs are not really vanilla: * some stuff might be deleted to save space (and I just would like to delete a little more in ECL than used to be), * some autogenerated additional stuff might get added (see the custom autotools project for ATLAS), * some addiitonal "binary" might be added (see the archdef tarballs for ATLAS). This situation is kind of exceptional but still problematic.
> > Someone like Volker as release manager should probably tell use the real > story. > > Sure, just waiting for some feedback to unlock some tickets. And thanks for your replies! -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-release" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-release+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-release@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-release. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
