+1 from me to the original proposal
--
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
Reminder to all to please keep the thread on topic (= vote on making these
packages standard).
Focus matters!
On Sunday, February 11, 2024 at 6:21:44 AM UTC-8 Dima Pasechnik wrote:
Sage 10.2 tarball is 1.3Gb, of which upstream/ subdirectory takes 80%.
(for some reason there's also .git/ -
On 11 February 2024 15:34:18 GMT, mmarco wrote:
>Maybe you can get the best of both worlds? I mean: use those packages as
>pip packages, but also have a way to download a big tarball with those
>packages, and then pip-install them from that local copy?
>
>El domingo, 11 de febrero de 2024 a
Maybe you can get the best of both worlds? I mean: use those packages as
pip packages, but also have a way to download a big tarball with those
packages, and then pip-install them from that local copy?
El domingo, 11 de febrero de 2024 a las 15:50:17 UTC+1, Kwankyu Lee
escribió:
> How about
How about we initiate a vote on letting standard packages be pip packages?
The vote should be rather on assuming internet connectivity for sage build
than on allowing standard pip packages. They are equivalent conditions.
Right?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to
5
On 11 February 2024 13:21:46 GMT, kcrisman wrote:
>
>
>I believe I'm the person who introduced that long standing policy. It
>was indeed motivated by a significant paying customer's requirement
>to install Sage entirely from source, and without an external network.
>I believe no such
I believe I'm the person who introduced that long standing policy. It
was indeed motivated by a significant paying customer's requirement
to install Sage entirely from source, and without an external network.
I believe no such customers have supported the Sage project for about
a decade, so
(Also, thanks everyone for so far taking extra effort to be civil when
discussing the topic of vendored
dependencies, which I know touches a nerve for people.)
On Sat, Feb 10, 2024 at 4:36 PM William Stein wrote:
>
> Hi Dima,
>
> I believe I'm the person who introduced that long standing policy.
Hi Dima,
I believe I'm the person who introduced that long standing policy. It
was indeed motivated by a significant paying customer's requirement
to install Sage entirely from source, and without an external network.
I believe no such customers have supported the Sage project for about
a
On Saturday, February 10, 2024 at 4:09:32 PM UTC-8 Dima Pasechnik wrote:
How about we initiate a vote on letting standard packages be pip packages?
You can make such a change of policy your project, but the present vote
will not wait for it.
--
You received this message because you are
On 10 February 2024 23:40:59 GMT, Matthias Koeppe
wrote:
>On Saturday, February 10, 2024 at 2:56:57 PM UTC-8 Dima Pasechnik wrote:
>
>yes, make them standard, but keep them pip packages (i.e. no version
>pinning, no tarballs/checksums).
>
>
>By current policy, "standard" packages cannot be
On Saturday, February 10, 2024 at 2:56:57 PM UTC-8 Dima Pasechnik wrote:
yes, make them standard, but keep them pip packages (i.e. no version
pinning, no tarballs/checksums).
By current policy, "standard" packages cannot be "pip" packages. This is
documented in
On Sat, Feb 10, 2024 at 10:18 PM Matthias Koeppe
wrote:
>
> We added the packages as optional "pip" packages (see
> https://deploy-livedoc--sagemath.netlify.app/html/en/developer/packaging#package-types
> for the terminology), each more than 1 year ago.
>
> -
>
We added the packages as optional "pip" packages
(see
https://deploy-livedoc--sagemath.netlify.app/html/en/developer/packaging#package-types
for the terminology), each more than 1 year ago.
-
https://deploy-livedoc--sagemath.netlify.app/html/en/reference/spkg/pytest#spkg-pytest
(added in
14 matches
Mail list logo
