#9761: Adjust spkg/standard/deps to build Python before zn_poly
-----------------------+----------------------------------------------------
Reporter: mpatel | Owner: GeorgSWeber
Type: defect | Status: new
Priority: blocker | Milestone: sage-4.5.3
Component: build | Keywords:
Author: | Upstream: N/A
Reviewer: | Merged:
Work_issues: |
-----------------------+----------------------------------------------------
Comment(by leif):
Replying to [comment:8 jhpalmieri]:
> I'm not sure that this should be a blocker, since the problem could be
viewed as a misconfigured PATH.
Well, if ''no'' system Python was available, the build would (or could)
break, too.
> Furthermore, as Dave says, William is in favor of making a system-wide
Python perhaps a prerequisite for building Sage.
I wouldn't mind, or perhaps even appreciate that. Like gcc requiring a C
compiler to build...
(I though wonder if we could then drop the Python package from Sage, at
least if a ''suitable'' version is already present.)
> > I though don't like making packages depend on Python just because some
developers appear to be unable or unwilling to write shell scripts
instead.
>
> Why not?
Because - currently - Python is '''not''' a prerequisite for building
Sage.
> I don't like arbitrarily deciding that people shouldn't write Python
scripts. For me, writing, reading, and debugging Python scripts is much
easier than doing the same for shell scripts, and I'll probably do a
better job working in Python.
I didn't mean that; in this case, the build process, IMHO one should use
tools that are designed for the specific purpose.
> Why put up barriers for people to contribute, especially when so many
contributors are mathematicians who don't particularly want to learn to
write shell scripts and who can't remember, for example, whether to use
"-a" or "&&"?
There are some Sage developers that aren't mathematicians; hopefully these
could give help with the non-mathematical parts. (Collaboration between
different disciplines seems to be a never-ending problem...)
It's easier to read Makefiles (and for me, e.g. {{{configure}}} scripts,
too) than arbitrary Python/Ruby/Perl/BASIC?/... scripts, especially when
people feel they have to reinvent their own wheel, i.e., not even using
libraries or packages that already achieve the same in a more standard way
(though I'm personally not very happy with e.g. SCons).
Once Sage has "boot-strapped", everybody is free to do arbitrary things in
the languages Sage supports...
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/9761#comment:10>
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.
