1 |
* fbissey@××××××××××××.nz <fbissey@××××××××××××.nz> [2011-08-09 17:21:10]: |
2 |
|
3 |
> Quoting VulK <etn45p4m@×××××.com>: |
4 |
> |
5 |
> > Hi, |
6 |
> > Thank you for the explanation: I kind of guessed that some part of sage were |
7 |
> > omitted to adapt the two packaging system but your explanation gave me the |
8 |
> > details I was missing. |
9 |
> > As you said the combinat queue is/should be a real mess of continuous |
10 |
> > updates (at least this is what I was told) so I am not entirely sure how well |
11 |
> > an e-build would perform, in case you decide to spend some time on it I will |
12 |
> > gladly be a guinea pig for testing it out. |
13 |
> > I do not understand sage package system in details so my request may just be |
14 |
> > stupid but is it possible to produce separate ebuilds for the different part |
15 |
> > of sage that are now stripped? If not for all of those can this be |
16 |
> > done for the |
17 |
> > various packages in $SAGE_ROOT/devel ? If an e-build is not feasible, can |
18 |
> > USE flags be used to select which extensions to include at compile time? |
19 |
> > |
20 |
> The details are a bit long to explain but everything provided by sage is |
21 |
> currently split. Technically what is missing is some scripts from the spkg |
22 |
> sage_scripts (provided by our sage-baselayout ebuild). Most of the files in |
23 |
> $SAGE_LOCAL/bin of a vanilla install that starts with sage are provided |
24 |
> by this |
25 |
> spkg. And we omit a lot of them, some are already installed only on use flag |
26 |
> request. We could add more if it was useful and feasible from a package |
27 |
> management perspective. |
28 |
> |
29 |
> I must say that talking with sage-developers interested in sage installed with |
30 |
> portage there is a possibility that some stuff may come back in some form once |
31 |
> we figured it out. |
32 |
|
33 |
Do you mean that in a distant future sage package system *might* become |
34 |
portage? |
35 |
|
36 |
> Something like sage -combinat creates a new sage branch. |
37 |
> There is a possibility that we could allow such a branch to be created |
38 |
> inside a |
39 |
> user account (not system wide) and allow its use. But that's still some |
40 |
> way off |
41 |
> on my map. In fact it may come as a surprise to my fellow sage-on-gentoo devs. |
42 |
> |
43 |
> Francois |
44 |
> |
45 |
> |
46 |
VulK |