#9433: Put more files under revision control.
------------------------------+---------------------------------------------
Reporter: jhpalmieri | Owner: tbd
Type: enhancement | Status: needs_review
Priority: major | Milestone: sage-4.6.1
Component: distribution | Keywords:
Author: John Palmieri | Upstream: N/A
Reviewer: Leif Leonhardy | Merged:
Work_issues: |
------------------------------+---------------------------------------------
Comment(by leif):
Replying to [comment:67 jhpalmieri]:
> Replying to [comment:64 leif]:
> > We '''have to''' download `spkg/install` (and I'd prefer the rest,
too) in `sage-update` (the Python script).
>
> I'm not sure what "the rest" refers to here.
Well, the files that were previously downloaded (`deps` and
`newest_version`, too). But also downloading `sage-env` (and e.g. `sage-
spkg`) is not a bad idea.
(I also plan to download `upgrade-notes.txt` and `pre-upgrade-script.sh`
first, such that the user (and we) can make an informed choice.)
[[BR]]
> > What's currently newly made in `sage-upgrade` should be moved to that
file, which is in any case the fresh, downloaded one. ''There'' we have to
make a distinction on if we are upgrading.
>
> Okay, I think I can do that.
>
> > If so, `spkg/install` should then install the root repo (preferably
without overwriting itself, but the root repo should, i.e. must, contain
exactly the same file), since our "real" Makefile `spkg/standard/deps`
doesn't (though I don't know why you don't want to put the root spkg
there).
>
> I don't want to put it there because in a non-upgrade, it's already
installed as part of the download.
Well, then `hg pull` would simply be a no-op. But we should check the exit
codes of the commands in `root-spkg-install` (`hg` and `cp`) anyway.
`hg incoming <source repo>` returns 1 if there's nothing to pull, 0 if
there are changes to pull, other values on errors, so you could change it
to:
{{{
#!sh
...
if [ -d "$TARGET"/.hg ]; then
# Merge the repository, rather than overwrite changes that the
# user may have made.
cd "$TARGET"
hg ci # Don't know if we should check in unconditionally,
# so perhaps move this below the if-elif-fi.
# should check for errors here
hg incoming "$CUR" # perhaps redirect output
if [ $? -eq 1 ]; then
# No changes to pull
exit 0
elif [ $? -ne 0 ]; then
# Some error, report...
exit 1
fi
# $? = 0: Changes to pull...
hg pull "$CUR"
hg merge tip
hg ci -m "Check-in during upgrade of Sage."
hg update
# Add error checks above, too.
else
...
}}}
(Or you could add a rule to `deps` that tests its presence / the need to
pull first, before calling `sage-spkg`. But if we one day generate `deps`,
this would be less optimal.)
[[BR]]
> > Btw, it would be better to also have `sage-spkg` in the root rather
than the scripts repo; or download an identical copy (from the scripts
repo) along with `install`, `deps` etc.
>
> That's not a bad idea, but it should go on another ticket. What about
the other scripts in spkg/base, for example sage-env?
Yes, see above. Once we have this ticket in, it will be easier (or at
least safer) to make such changes. :-)
P.S.: I wonder if the presence of `$SAGE_ROOT/.hg` guarantees us a
functional Mercurial... ;-)
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/9433#comment:68>
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.
