#10423: Upgrade Jinja2 to version 2.5.5 (latest upstream)
-----------------------------------------+----------------------------------
Reporter: leif | Owner: tbd
Type: defect | Status: closed
Priority: blocker | Milestone: sage-4.6.1
Component: packages | Resolution: fixed
Keywords: Sphinx download jinja2 spkg | Author: Leif Leonhardy
Upstream: N/A | Reviewer: Jeroen Demeyer
Merged: sage-4.6.1.alpha3 | Work_issues:
-----------------------------------------+----------------------------------
Comment(by leif):
Replying to [comment:6 jdemeyer]:
> Replying to [comment:4 leif]:
> > The p0 was intentional, as IMHO ''every'' Sage package should have a
"patch" level, be it zero for the first spkg in a new upstream series, to
avoid confusion with (vanilla) upstream tarballs and packages.
> Upstream tarballs and packages don't have an `.spkg` extension, so I
don't think there is much confusion possible.
An `.spkg` is essentially the same as a `.tar`, `.tar.gz` or `.tar.bz2`,
so the extension doesn't really matter, except that for dealing with an
`.spkg` you have to modify filename completion.
So a "real" spkg, with `src/`, `SPKG.txt` and `spkg-install` etc. should
have a different basename, which should be the upstream name
(unfortunately not always the case) plus Sage's addendum, `.pX`, to
distinguish its ''content'' / structure.
As said above, you can also directly install some vanilla upstream
packages if you only change the extension (from e.g. `.tar.bz2` to
`.spkg`); these should clearly be distinguishable by lacking a Sage "patch
level". (You can of course also rename spkgs to `.tar.bz2` or create links
just to make handling them easier. ;-) )
[[BR]]
> About the naming: it seems there are no rules for this. I would
personally always add a patch level if the package contains patches, no
patch level otherwise (as is the case with Jinja2).
This is an endless discussion (some even say there shouldn't be p0's, but
only p1's and up).
IMHO we should use p0 for the first package (new or upgraded to a newer
upstream version) if there are no actual patches to upstream source code,
p1 otherwise, i.e. if we still have to apply patches though upstream is
fresh. (Some even start without a patch level despite we patch upstream.)
"Downgrading" the patch level, or keeping it for a long time though there
have been many changes during the review process is the worst thing. I
don't know how many x.y.z.pK'''.oldN''' spkgs I have. At least posting the
new md5sum gets common now.
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/10423#comment:8>
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.
