On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 7:06 PM, William Stein <wst...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 4:31 AM, Erik Bray <erik.m.b...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I don't particularly care what the default is but the point here in >> the first place is that it shouldn't try to build and install its own >> gcc if one doesn't explicitly ask for it, opting instead to report >> what dependencies were missing such that sage couldn't be built. >> >> I think Simon's point was that if it can be made to work that way for >> gcc why stop there? Admittedly gcc is a special case. But one way or >> another it would be good in general to have more control over what >> packages Sage automatically builds and installs, as opposed to >> requiring dependencies from the system--this is nothing new. > > "This is nothing new" for **most** projects. For Sage this is. From > the very beginning I took an unusual approach to the Sage build system > for various reasons -- mainly, so that mathematicians -- rather than > software engineers -- could actually help with development.
When I wrote "this is nothing new" I just meant we've had this discussion a dozen times just since I started working on the project, not to mention for years before then (I remember it's partly what made me interested in the first place). -- 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 https://groups.google.com/group/sage-release. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
