| 1 |
I am definitely giving some thought on that but nothing concrete |
| 2 |
so far. Upstream is not managing it at all so any solution will be our |
| 3 |
own work. |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
François |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
On 23/09/2014, at 21:48, v_2e@×××.net wrote: |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
> On Tue, 23 Sep 2014 20:51:13 +1200 |
| 10 |
> François Bissey <frp.bissey@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
>> According to upstream it all should be enough (there was a thread not |
| 13 |
>> so long ago on sage-devel I am sure). |
| 14 |
>> We must be doing something slightly differently. In any case, while |
| 15 |
>> it is nice to have it building most people probably prefer the binary |
| 16 |
>> version. We only started to use it for normal release because that |
| 17 |
>> official binaries for the doc was so late we couldn’t release stable |
| 18 |
>> ebuilds for sage 6.2. |
| 19 |
>> |
| 20 |
>> I will see what we could do. |
| 21 |
>> |
| 22 |
> I think it would also be very nice to have some USE-flags for the |
| 23 |
> sage-doc package in order not to build all the documentation for all |
| 24 |
> the languages. It takes about 1.3GB on my PC which seems too much, as |
| 25 |
> for me. Is it possible to organize a kind of "selective build" with the |
| 26 |
> corresponding USE-flags? |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> Vladimir |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
> ----- |
| 32 |
> <v_2e@×××.net> |
| 33 |
> |
Archives