#9351: deps for sagetex with SAGE_CHECK='yes'
-----------------------------+----------------------------------------------
Reporter: jhpalmieri | Owner: tbd
Type: defect | Status: new
Priority: major | Milestone: sage-4.5
Component: spkg-check | Keywords:
Author: John Palmieri | Upstream: N/A
Reviewer: | Merged:
Work_issues: |
-----------------------------+----------------------------------------------
Changes (by drkirkby):
* cc: mpatel (added)
Comment:
I understand how this is a problem - I'm a bit puzzled at the solution
though:)
Is there any reason not to make sage a prerequisite for sagetex directly,
rather than via gap? I realise in practice it achieve the same thing, but
it is far more confusing for someone to understand if they read deps.
Would this not work, but be more informative and less confusing?
{{{
# Sagetex does not require Sage in order that it may be built, but it does
require
# Sage in order that it may be tested using SAGE_CHECK=yes.
$(INST)/$(SAGETEX): $(INST)/$(PYTHON) $(INST)/$(SAGE)
241 $(INSTALL) "$(SAGE_SPKG) $(SAGETEX) 2>&1" "tee -a
$(SAGE_LOGS)/$(SAGETEX).log"
}}}
We might in fact find other dependencies that we don't know about.
Building packages in parallel will force deps to be more accurate. There
may be other packages which can only be tested after something else is
built. So as we had spkg-check files, there might be other similar issues
arise.
Dave
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/9351#comment:2>
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.
