[aur-general] Proposal to move sage-mathematics into [community].
xyne at archlinux.ca
Sat Aug 14 07:19:26 EDT 2010
Sven-Hendrik Haase wrote:
> If I have understood your correctly, you want sage to provide python and
> all its other components as if they were vanilla?
Peter Lewis wrote:
> It may be that there are a few core components (however we define that) like
> maxima or octave that can be "provided"...
This is mostly what I had in mind. Even with modifications, some of the
component packages such as maxima or octave should fulfill most
dependencies of packages that require them and could thus be used
instead of the vanilla packages by users who require Sage. Even if it
only provides a few, it would still help offset the cost of installing
I wrote 'to have the package "provide" as many of its components as
possible (if any)' *because* I doubt that most of them can be exposed.
Loui Chang wrote:
> It seems pretty ridiculous that they wouldn't have made provisions to
> use a system python rather than a bundled one. I maintain brlcad which
> bundles tcl/tk, boost, and a host of other libs but they have a proper
> build system which can check for and use system libs. Some of the libs
> are more obscure and probably should be bundled. I can imagine the same
> situation would occur with sage-mathematics. I'm left wondering why sage
> can't get their modifications incorporated upstream.
> I don't imagine using sage any time soon, but I can imagine users being
> a little peeved if they required virtually two installations of python -
> or any other major package.
It *is* ridiculous. The upstream developers either think that "disk is
cheap" and don't care, or they think that Sage is the be-all-end-all
mathematics package and that no one would ever need any of the vanilla
That's just the way it is though and users of Sage know this. Aside
from incessantly nagging upstream, there is nothing that can be done
about it, which is why we're left with working around the duplication.
More information about the aur-general