#8583: Add guidelines for updating standard packages.
-----------------------------+----------------------------------------------
Reporter: drkirkby | Owner: mvngu
Type: defect | Status: new
Priority: major | Milestone: sage-5.0
Component: documentation | Keywords:
Author: | Upstream: N/A
Reviewer: | Merged:
Work_issues: |
-----------------------------+----------------------------------------------
The developers guide has some guidance on how to update .spkg files
http://www.sagemath.org/doc/developer/patching_spkgs.html
which is well written and clear, but need expanding. The following is a
list of suggestions, which are based on my original proposal, and feedback
from others on sage-devel.
== Additional Information Needed for Updating Packages. ==
1) Are there any new warnings about depreciated options to the configure
script(s) if they are used? If there are new warnings, you need to
understand why the option was given, why it depreciated, and what you
should do about it.
2) Are there any warnings about unrecognized options to configure scripts?
If so, it is '''essential''' these are resolved.
3) If there are any patches to the original package, do they need re-
writing? If a source file is overwritten, are you sure that overwriting it
is still appropriate?
4) Does the new package build on Linux, OSX and Solaris? The author should
provide the output of 'uname -a' on all system where they have checked the
updated package and place that on the trac ticket.
5) Are any special build instructions listed in SPKG.txt followed?
6) Read ALL the comments in SPKG.txt, to see what people have changed and
why. Do any of them have implications for the update?
7) Are all the patches applied still necessary? Sometimes bugs may be
fixed upstream, so a patch is not required.
8) Are there any new dependencies? Sometimes new versions of packages
require libraries that versions ones did not, or require later versions of
libraries. If so, does Sage include those dependencies? Just because your
system has the dependency, do not assume that everyone else will have it.
9) Have you read the release notes for the update? If not, do so, and
ensure there is nothing that will obviously cause a problem in Sage. If
possible provide a web link to the release notes to aid the reviewer.
10) Have you documented the trac ticket for the update in SPKG.txt? If
not, do so. If a ticket is not open for the update, then create the
ticket, and reference that in SPKG.txt
== Additional Information Needed for Reviewing Packages. ==
The reviewer(s) should test the updated package on at least one Linux, one
OS X and one Solaris 10 system. Ideally, these systems should be different
to those used by the author. In the case of the Linux system, testing the
package on a different distribution of Linux to that used by the author
would be preferable. However, in some cases the reviewer may have no
option but to test on the same systems as the author, though they should
try to test on different systems if possible.
The reviewer should place on the trac ticket the output of 'uname -a' on
the systems which they have tested the package.
The reviewer should read the release notes for the new package, to
determine if he/she believes there are changes which may be needed to the
package.
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/8583>
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 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-trac?hl=en.
