| 1 |
Quoting Thomas Kahle <tomka@g.o>: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> Hi, |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> I've run the attached script to find duplicates of packages from |
| 6 |
> sage-on-gentoo in science. The output was: |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> $ ./find-overlay-dups.sh |
| 9 |
> sci-chemistry/jmol |
| 10 |
> sci-libs/fplll |
| 11 |
> sci-libs/givaro |
| 12 |
> sci-libs/iml |
| 13 |
> sci-libs/m4ri |
| 14 |
> sci-libs/symmetrica |
| 15 |
> sci-mathematics/gap |
| 16 |
> sci-mathematics/polybori |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> What do people think about merging those versions in the science overlay |
| 20 |
> and removing them from sage-on-gentoo (or vice-versa)? Probably in most |
| 21 |
> cases there are additional fixes in sage-on-gentoo that science users |
| 22 |
> could benefit from (or at least should hurt nobody)? |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
Hi, |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Since Christopher and I have access to the science overlay we should |
| 27 |
do some clean up and synchronization. |
| 28 |
Let's see case by case: |
| 29 |
jmol, there are a few differences between mine and the science overlay, |
| 30 |
jeffro and I are not in tune regarding EAPI and that's the main source of |
| 31 |
differences (last time I looked). |
| 32 |
fplll, givaro, iml, m4ri and polybori we are probably ahead. In fact we |
| 33 |
probably put them in science in the first place. symmetrica and gap we are |
| 34 |
probably ahead as well because I am not sure anyone else maintain them. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
Synchronization requires some time. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
About merging. Why not if you are ok with our cruft.... |
| 39 |
like old pexpect that has moved out of the tree, our own python ebuild (until |
| 40 |
2.7.3 is finally released), I carry a special version of R for OS X on prefix |
| 41 |
(have to fill the bug for that one). old networkx because the one we need as |
| 42 |
dropped of the main tree.... |
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
Cheers, |
| 46 |
Francois |
Archives