From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Qqep7-00042q-Kg for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 09 Aug 2011 05:25:53 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id E226321C0CF; Tue, 9 Aug 2011 05:25:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mxi2.callplus.net.nz (mx194.callplus.net.nz [202.180.66.194]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF17821C09C for ; Tue, 9 Aug 2011 05:25:34 +0000 (UTC) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AikGAE3EQE7KtEIE/2dsb2JhbABChEeTVZAFgUABAQQBI1sLCAMaAhEVAgIhNhmHbawqkVOBLIINgX2BEAScc4cP X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.67,342,1309694400"; d="scan'208";a="207241710" Received: from wmsrv3.tranzpeer.net (HELO localhost) ([202.180.66.4]) by ismtp2.tranzpeer.net with ESMTP; 09 Aug 2011 17:25:32 +1200 Received: from 202.36.179.68 ([202.36.179.68]) by webmail.slingshot.co.nz (Horde) with HTTP for ; Tue, 09 Aug 2011 17:21:10 +1200 Message-ID: <20110809172110.f52ccoc4s0kcok8s@webmail.slingshot.co.nz> Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2011 17:21:10 +1200 From: fbissey@slingshot.co.nz To: gentoo-science@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-science] sage queues References: <20110809030859.GE24561@mistaya.nunet.neu.edu> <20110809162952.nn4s0c4048sscww0@webmail.slingshot.co.nz> <20110809050744.GF24561@mistaya.nunet.neu.edu> In-Reply-To: <20110809050744.GF24561@mistaya.nunet.neu.edu> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-science@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-science@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed" Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit User-Agent: Internet Messaging Program (IMP) 4.0-cvs X-Originating-IP: 202.36.179.68 X-Archives-Salt: X-Archives-Hash: 4b5750e6aa34d0711e4ab9dc144e9d2a Quoting VulK : > Hi, > Thank you for the explanation: I kind of guessed that some part of sage were > omitted to adapt the two packaging system but your explanation gave me the > details I was missing. > As you said the combinat queue is/should be a real mess of continuous > updates (at least this is what I was told) so I am not entirely sure how well > an e-build would perform, in case you decide to spend some time on it I will > gladly be a guinea pig for testing it out. > I do not understand sage package system in details so my request may just be > stupid but is it possible to produce separate ebuilds for the different part > of sage that are now stripped? If not for all of those can this be > done for the > various packages in $SAGE_ROOT/devel ? If an e-build is not feasible, can > USE flags be used to select which extensions to include at compile time? > The details are a bit long to explain but everything provided by sage is currently split. Technically what is missing is some scripts from the spkg sage_scripts (provided by our sage-baselayout ebuild). Most of the files in $SAGE_LOCAL/bin of a vanilla install that starts with sage are provided by this spkg. And we omit a lot of them, some are already installed only on use flag request. We could add more if it was useful and feasible from a package management perspective. I must say that talking with sage-developers interested in sage installed with portage there is a possibility that some stuff may come back in some form once we figured it out. Something like sage -combinat creates a new sage branch. There is a possibility that we could allow such a branch to be created inside a user account (not system wide) and allow its use. But that's still some way off on my map. In fact it may come as a surprise to my fellow sage-on-gentoo devs. Francois