On 06/18/10 11:30 PM, William Stein wrote:
Fair enough.
I'll post a list of "highly recommended optional packages" in this
thread sometime in the next few days.
William
IMHO, there should be some distinction between optional and experimental. At the
moment, there appears to be done.
My own definition might be
== Experimental ==
No specific requirements. Within reason, anybody can add anything to
experimental, with minimal requirements for quality.
== Optional ==
* Must have a test suite.
* Must builds and pass tests on all supported platforms, unless the package is
inherently not portable (e.g. Valgrind).
At the moment, there is a much more severe warning on the web site about
experimental packages, but there appears to be no formal requirement for
something to become 'optional', rather than just 'experimental'.
Arthur is trying to install optional packages, but has not mentioned anything
about experimental. I suspect he believes that "optional" packages are more
useful than "experimental" ones. But there is nothing I can find written to make
the requirements for a package becoming "optional" any different from
"experiential".
Dave
--
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/sage-support
URL: http://www.sagemath.org
