[aur-general] Proposal to move sage-mathematics into [community].

[Ronald van Haren]

On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 6:43 PM, Thomas Dziedzic <gostrc at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 6:19 AM, Xyne <xyne at archlinux.ca> wrote:
>
>> 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?
>>
>> No...
>>
>> 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
>> the package.
>>
>> 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
>> components.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Xyne
>>
>
> If anyone has any other comments or pressing issues, please respond now. I
> will wait another day before moving it into community.
>

nah, just in case you are going to use provides, make sure that
existing frontends work with it and such.

Ronald