#19781: Fix optional packages
------------------------------------------+------------------------
Reporter: jdemeyer | Owner:
Type: enhancement | Status: new
Priority: blocker | Milestone: sage-7.0
Component: packages: experimental | Resolution:
Keywords: | Merged in:
Authors: Jeroen Demeyer | Reviewers:
Report Upstream: N/A | Work issues:
Branch: | Commit:
Dependencies: | Stopgaps:
------------------------------------------+------------------------
Comment (by tscrim):
Replying to [comment:47 jdemeyer]:
> Replying to [comment:46 tscrim]:
> > So for `lie`, I know that you can reach an upstream contact. However,
I don't think they are necessarily active, nor do I think they would care
about improving the build process.
>
> I think we can look at the `planarity` package for what will hopefully
happen. That package had the same problem as `lie` (but maybe slightly
less bad). In that case, upstream didn't know about autotools but they
accepted the autotoolization done by Nathann Cohen and now their "official
release" is made with autotools.
>
> So the first thing to do is to ask upstream what they think about this.
I will send them a message and see what they say. However, I'm not sure we
will necessarily receive a quick response, so I'm thinking we should start
working on converting it to autotools.
What do you think about the `bison` dependency? Keep with the current
concept of failing with an error message recommending the user install a
system-wide `bison`?
> > So do you think we should rework the build process or fork the project
and split it into 2, one for the library and one for the interface (this
is the part that needs `bison` as I understand it)?
>
> I see no reason to split it up. Are you even sure that there is a
"library"? At least I know that Sage does not use any library.
At present, there isn't really a reason because we only have the interface
in Sage. I'm somewhat planning on interacting with the algorithms in `lie`
once more of #14901 is done, but I don't think that will happen until next
year.
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/19781#comment:49>
Sage <http://www.sagemath.org>
Sage: Creating a Viable Open Source Alternative to Magma, Maple, Mathematica,
and MATLAB
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-trac" 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-trac.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
