#11246: flint-1.5.0.p5's extraneous #includes break typedef ulong in sys/types.h
---------------------------------------------------+------------------------
Reporter: dimpase | Owner: tbd
Type: defect | Status:
needs_review
Priority: major | Milestone:
sage-4.7.2
Component: packages | Keywords: cygwin
Work_issues: | Upstream: N/A
Reviewer: Karl-Dieter Crisman, Leif Leonhardy | Author: Dima
Pasechnik, Jeroen Demeyer
Merged: | Dependencies:
---------------------------------------------------+------------------------
Comment(by dimpase):
Replying to [comment:48 leif]:
> Replying to [comment:46 jdemeyer]:
> > Replying to [comment:38 leif]:
> > > and commit the changes
> > This is no longer necessary, the changes will be committed when the
spkg is merged.
>
> WTF? In whose name, and what will be the commit message?
>
> I'm strongly against "generic" commit messages, even if the tags (with
the spkg version / patch level, perhaps ticket number) were complete, i.e.
referring to the Changelog. Each Changelog entry is somewhat cumulative,
and usually more high-level, while commit messages may be more specific
(especially if they consist of more than one line).
>
> So I wouldn't encourage people to not commit their changes.
IMHO, this discussion just highlights a need to revamp the whole spkg
system, for 99% of the standard spkgs, at least.
It would be much better if the whole non-building part of the spkg install
is done in a uniform way, by hg, say,
rather than handwritten scripts...
The need for the current spkg system is dictated by the need of some
optional parts of Sage, that demand, say, a distribution in an unmodified
form. Yet, putting the spkg source under hg is not a modification. Sage
can distribute spkg source with the hg tree, and Sage-needed patches as
patches to be applied by an spkg-install.
>
> Also, having multiple commits in the same spkg version is useful (and
not uncommon, even by a single developer) if the changes are (perhaps
bigger and) rather unrelated.
>
> Then having the last change uncommitted would be a bit inconsistent.
>
> Also, I think `sage -pkg ...` (does ''anybody'' use that? :-) ) would at
least currently reject an spkg with uncommitted changes, which isn't all
bad.
no, that's not true. And in fact sage -pkg should not reject such an spkg,
as you want to debug your spkg before committing changes.
Dima
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/11246#comment:49>
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.
