Re: [sage-devel] "replacement" optional packages

2017-03-14 Thread Dima Pasechnik
On Sunday, March 12, 2017 at 8:38:02 AM UTC, Jeroen Demeyer wrote: > > On 2017-03-12 09:35, Dima Pasechnik wrote: > > X11? > > That can be disabled with --disable-gui > this does not work, still (here is a slightly weird error I get on OSX (with Sage's gcc 5.4)): g++ -DPACKAGE_NAME=\"\"

Re: [sage-devel] "replacement" optional packages

2017-03-12 Thread Dima Pasechnik
On Sunday, March 12, 2017 at 10:05:56 PM UTC, François wrote: > > On 13/03/17 11:00, Justin C. Walker wrote: > > I'm trying to imagine surf without graphics (:-}), but perhaps that's > not what you mean exactly. > > > > Thanks for clarifying. > > I don't know surf :) but I imagine it can

Re: [sage-devel] "replacement" optional packages

2017-03-12 Thread François Bissey
On 13/03/17 11:00, Justin C. Walker wrote: I'm trying to imagine surf without graphics (:-}), but perhaps that's not what you mean exactly. Thanks for clarifying. I don't know surf :) but I imagine it can output to jpeg and tiff directly. And if X is found to a basic x-window. If the gui

Re: [sage-devel] "replacement" optional packages

2017-03-12 Thread Justin C. Walker
On Mar 12, 2017, at 11:43 , Francois Bissey wrote: > >> On 13/03/2017, at 07:34, Justin C. Walker wrote: >> >> >> On Mar 12, 2017, at 00:27 , Dima Pasechnik wrote: >> >>> there is no "issue" with pandoc. Most linux distros allow you to install it >>> using package manager,

Re: [sage-devel] "replacement" optional packages

2017-03-12 Thread Francois Bissey
> On 13/03/2017, at 07:34, Justin C. Walker wrote: > > > On Mar 12, 2017, at 00:27 , Dima Pasechnik wrote: > >> there is no "issue" with pandoc. Most linux distros allow you to install it >> using package manager, and it is easy to install it on OSX or Windows. >> >> On the

Re: [sage-devel] "replacement" optional packages

2017-03-12 Thread Justin C. Walker
On Mar 12, 2017, at 00:27 , Dima Pasechnik wrote: > there is no "issue" with pandoc. Most linux distros allow you to install it > using package manager, and it is easy to install it on OSX or Windows. > > On the other hand, it appears that surf had never been ported to OSX. No: in fact,

Re: [sage-devel] "replacement" optional packages

2017-03-12 Thread Francois Bissey
> On 12/03/2017, at 21:38, Jeroen Demeyer wrote: > > On 2017-03-12 09:35, Dima Pasechnik wrote: >> X11? > > That can be disabled with --disable-gui Indeed X absence is not fatal in configure unlike libjpeg. I guess my point is that before saying it needs porting it

Re: [sage-devel] "replacement" optional packages

2017-03-12 Thread Jeroen Demeyer
On 2017-03-12 09:27, Dima Pasechnik wrote: On the other hand, it appears that surf had never been ported to OSX. What does that mean? It just means that pandoc is more popular than surf. I somebody has really tried to compile surf on OS X and didn't manage, that would be a different story.

Re: [sage-devel] "replacement" optional packages

2017-03-12 Thread Jeroen Demeyer
On 2017-03-12 09:35, Dima Pasechnik wrote: X11? That can be disabled with --disable-gui -- 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

Re: [sage-devel] "replacement" optional packages

2017-03-12 Thread Dima Pasechnik
X11? -- 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 post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com.

Re: [sage-devel] "replacement" optional packages

2017-03-12 Thread Francois Bissey
Apart from dependencies like jpeg what’s the problem with surf? François > On 12/03/2017, at 21:27, Dima Pasechnik wrote: > > there is no "issue" with pandoc. Most linux distros allow you to install it > using package manager, and it is easy to install it on OSX or Windows.

Re: [sage-devel] "replacement" optional packages

2017-03-12 Thread Dima Pasechnik
there is no "issue" with pandoc. Most linux distros allow you to install it using package manager, and it is easy to install it on OSX or Windows. On the other hand, it appears that surf had never been ported to OSX. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups

Re: [sage-devel] "replacement" optional packages

2017-03-12 Thread Jeroen Demeyer
On 2017-03-11 20:18, Dima Pasechnik wrote: in this sense dependence on pandoc is OK, dependence on surf - much less so. Isn't the issue with surf the same as pandoc: it requires dependencies which are not part of Sage. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google

Re: [sage-devel] "replacement" optional packages

2017-03-11 Thread Justin C. Walker
On Mar 11, 2017, at 01:32 , Jeroen Demeyer wrote: > Speaking of optional packages, we should also think of a strategy to deal > with optional packages which have dependencies which are not part of Sage. > > For example, the optional rst2ipynb package requires pandoc, which is not in > Sage. >

Re: [sage-devel] "replacement" optional packages

2017-03-11 Thread Dima Pasechnik
FYI, pandoc installs and runs on all the platforms that sage supports. But surf does not. in this sense dependence on pandoc is OK, dependence on surf - much less so. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group

Re: [sage-devel] "replacement" optional packages

2017-03-11 Thread Jeroen Demeyer
Speaking of optional packages, we should also think of a strategy to deal with optional packages which have dependencies which are not part of Sage. For example, the optional rst2ipynb package requires pandoc, which is not in Sage. On the other hand, in #22378 I wanted to package surf as

Re: [sage-devel] "replacement" optional packages

2017-03-03 Thread Erik Bray
On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 8:52 AM, Jeroen Demeyer wrote: > I have been thinking about this too. My personal conclusion was that the > "type" enumeration (standard, optional, experimental, pip, script) is simply > too restricted and that we need additional metadata with more

Re: [sage-devel] "replacement" optional packages

2017-03-01 Thread Dima Pasechnik
On Wednesday, March 1, 2017 at 7:52:26 AM UTC, Jeroen Demeyer wrote: > > I have been thinking about this too. My personal conclusion was that the > "type" enumeration (standard, optional, experimental, pip, script) is > simply too restricted and that we need additional metadata with more >

Re: [sage-devel] "replacement" optional packages

2017-02-28 Thread Jeroen Demeyer
I have been thinking about this too. My personal conclusion was that the "type" enumeration (standard, optional, experimental, pip, script) is simply too restricted and that we need additional metadata with more degrees of freedom. Currently, the "type" field is relevant for: - which packages

[sage-devel] "replacement" optional packages

2017-02-28 Thread Thierry
Hi, having the possibility to install all optional packages is interesting for easy deployment as well as for testing (we need more automated tests of all optional packages, in particular more patchbots with optional packages installed). Currently, some optional packages, like gmp/mpir,