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

[Thomas Dziedzic]

On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 12:24 PM, Ronald van Haren <pressh at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>

I'm not going to use provides because they are sage's internal versions.
Some are outdated or patched and using them independently is not upstream's
intentions.