Re: [sage-devel] Re: Meson Build System

[sumaiya qureshi]

Hey All!

Please let me know I am included within the accepted organization or not?

According to Karachi, Pakistan timezone last night was my GSoC'23 result.

Please guide me through the procedure how to check my GSoC'23 result.

Name :- Sumaiya Qureshi (Karachi, Pakistan)

I opted for Improvements to mathematics interaction with the desired
organization "Oppia" within Web category.

Let me know if you all sage developers want further information regarding
myself to search my result.

Regards,
Sumaiya.

On Wed, May 3, 2023, 12:23 AM Matthias Koeppe 
wrote:

> Hi Volker,
> I would welcome using Meson (specifically meson-python) for building the
> Sage *library*, replacing our use of the very dated setuptools. Other
> scientific packages, notably SciPy have gone this route with great success.
> That's https://github.com/sagemath/sage/issues/34630, and I'll be happy
> to discuss more and collaborate on this.
> This would have a great impact - faster compilation of the Sage library,
> proper tracking of dependencies, etc.
>
> On the other hand, I would be very reluctant to replace the autoconf +
> Makefile build system that drives the Sage *distribution*. A lot of work
> has gone into achieving the platform support that we currently offer, and
> on a short time scale, there is little to be gained by reimplementing all
> that. And in the medium/long term, as discussed in another sage-devel
> thread, I would hope that the Sage project can withdraw from its
> (historically important) role as a user-installable software distribution
> altogether because other projects, in particular conda-forge, are
> increasingly filling it.
>
> On Tuesday, May 2, 2023 at 10:54:54 AM UTC-7 Volker Weißmann wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I'm a developer that worked quite a bit with the meson build system and
>> looked at   sagemath for a few days. I thought that redoing the build
>> system with meson instead of autoconf would be quite a bit of work, but
>> would
>>
>> 1. Be far, far more readable.
>> 2. Result in far faster incremental builds if very little has changed
>> since the last build.
>>
>> What do you think? Is this a good idea? Would you appreciate (and merge)
>> such an endeavour?
>>
>> Greetings
>> Volker
>>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "sage-devel" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/00aecbee-42bb-47ac-9c2e-dfc4f600641dn%40googlegroups.com
> 
> .
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/CAOgrLb1P6pAcJ7T%3D_Sx4JtgaVCZxRacS77Vfs%2BdPP518Wf8OUA%40mail.gmail.com.

[sage-devel] Re: Meson Build System

[Matthias Koeppe]

Hi Volker,
I would welcome using Meson (specifically meson-python) for building the 
Sage *library*, replacing our use of the very dated setuptools. Other 
scientific packages, notably SciPy have gone this route with great success. 
That's https://github.com/sagemath/sage/issues/34630, and I'll be happy to 
discuss more and collaborate on this.
This would have a great impact - faster compilation of the Sage library, 
proper tracking of dependencies, etc. 

On the other hand, I would be very reluctant to replace the autoconf + 
Makefile build system that drives the Sage *distribution*. A lot of work 
has gone into achieving the platform support that we currently offer, and 
on a short time scale, there is little to be gained by reimplementing all 
that. And in the medium/long term, as discussed in another sage-devel 
thread, I would hope that the Sage project can withdraw from its 
(historically important) role as a user-installable software distribution 
altogether because other projects, in particular conda-forge, are 
increasingly filling it.

On Tuesday, May 2, 2023 at 10:54:54 AM UTC-7 Volker Weißmann wrote:

> Hello,
>
> I'm a developer that worked quite a bit with the meson build system and 
> looked at   sagemath for a few days. I thought that redoing the build 
> system with meson instead of autoconf would be quite a bit of work, but 
> would
>
> 1. Be far, far more readable.
> 2. Result in far faster incremental builds if very little has changed 
> since the last build.
>
> What do you think? Is this a good idea? Would you appreciate (and merge) 
> such an endeavour?
>
> Greetings
> Volker
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/00aecbee-42bb-47ac-9c2e-dfc4f600641dn%40googlegroups.com.