Is anyone packaging sage?

[Manuel Wolfshant]

On 01/05/2008 10:38 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Manuel Wolfshant <wolfy <at> nobugconsulting.ro> writes:
>   
>>     I have also included a patch which removes from the sage install 
>> script the parts which I think that are already available in rawhide.
>>     
>
> Still, a monolithic solution like this is not going to fly, every single of 
> these separate projects needs to be packaged separately,
    I absolutely agree with you. I have mentioned that I agree with 
having all prereqs as separate packages. But I wanted to see things 
started and to isolate the BRs

>  usually directly from 
> upstream, not from the bundled often outdated version in SAGE.
agree again

>  Unfortunately, 
> SAGE tries to be yet another program which tries to be a distro, this sucks. 
>   
they just want top be sure that what they ship, works. I can understand 
that. That does not mean that I agree.



> Out of spkg/standard/*.spkg, as a first guess, only 
> spkg/standard/*-2.9.1.1.spkg makes sense to package as part of SAGE, that would 
> be doc, examples, extcode, sage and sage_scripts. And these should be 5 
> separate packages or subpackages (e.g. sagemath, sagemath-doc, 
> sagemath-examples, sagemath-extcode, sagemath-scripts).
>
> Moreover, at least in your build.log, it appears also to still build stuff like 
> ATLAS 
I have not noticed it in the repo...
> and gnutls which are already in Fedora (and the gnutls build failed).
>   
no, it's python-gnutls that failed