[gentoo-science] sage-on-gentoo and science duplicates

[gentoo-science] sage-on-gentoo and science duplicates

[Thomas Kahle]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 646 bytes --]

Hi,

I've run the attached script to find duplicates of packages from
sage-on-gentoo in science.  The output was:

$ ./find-overlay-dups.sh
sci-chemistry/jmol
sci-libs/fplll
sci-libs/givaro
sci-libs/iml
sci-libs/m4ri
sci-libs/symmetrica
sci-mathematics/gap
sci-mathematics/polybori


What do people think about merging those versions in the science overlay
and removing them from sage-on-gentoo (or vice-versa)?  Probably in most
cases there are additional fixes in sage-on-gentoo that science users
could benefit from (or at least should hurt nobody)?

Cheers,
Thomas


-- 
Thomas Kahle
http://dev.gentoo.org/~tomka/

[-- Attachment #1.2: find-overlay-dups.sh --]
[-- Type: application/x-sh, Size: 613 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 316 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-science] sage-on-gentoo and science duplicates

[v_2e]

  Hello!

On Mon, 6 Feb 2012 15:57:28 +0100
Thomas Kahle <tomka@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 
> What do people think about merging those versions in the science
> overlay and removing them from sage-on-gentoo (or vice-versa)?
> Probably in most cases there are additional fixes in sage-on-gentoo
> that science users could benefit from (or at least should hurt
> nobody)?
> 
  If so, what about merging the 'sage-on-gentoo' overlay into the
'science'?

  Vladimir

----- 
 <v_2e@ukr.net>

Re: [gentoo-science] sage-on-gentoo and science duplicates

[fbissey]

Quoting Thomas Kahle <tomka@gentoo.org>:

> Hi,
>
> I've run the attached script to find duplicates of packages from
> sage-on-gentoo in science.  The output was:
>
> $ ./find-overlay-dups.sh
> sci-chemistry/jmol
> sci-libs/fplll
> sci-libs/givaro
> sci-libs/iml
> sci-libs/m4ri
> sci-libs/symmetrica
> sci-mathematics/gap
> sci-mathematics/polybori
>
>
> What do people think about merging those versions in the science overlay
> and removing them from sage-on-gentoo (or vice-versa)?  Probably in most
> cases there are additional fixes in sage-on-gentoo that science users
> could benefit from (or at least should hurt nobody)?
>
Hi,

Since Christopher and I have access to the science overlay we should
do some clean up and synchronization.
Let's see case by case:
jmol, there are a few differences between mine and the science overlay,
jeffro and I are not in tune regarding EAPI and that's the main source of
differences (last time I looked).
fplll, givaro, iml, m4ri and polybori we are probably ahead. In fact we
probably put them in science in the first place. symmetrica and gap we are
probably ahead as well because I am not sure anyone else maintain them.

Synchronization requires some time.

About merging. Why not if you are ok with our cruft....
like old pexpect that has moved out of the tree, our own python ebuild (until
2.7.3 is finally released), I carry a special version of R for OS X on prefix
(have to fill the bug for that one). old networkx because the one we need as
dropped of the main tree....


Cheers,
Francois

Re: [gentoo-science] sage-on-gentoo and science duplicates

[Thomas Kahle]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2044 bytes --]

On 10:32 Tue 07 Feb 2012, fbissey@slingshot.co.nz wrote:
> > I've run the attached script to find duplicates of packages from
> > sage-on-gentoo in science.  The output was:
> >
> > $ ./find-overlay-dups.sh
> > sci-chemistry/jmol
> > sci-libs/fplll
> > sci-libs/givaro
> > sci-libs/iml
> > sci-libs/m4ri
> > sci-libs/symmetrica
> > sci-mathematics/gap
> > sci-mathematics/polybori
> >
> >
> > What do people think about merging those versions in the science overlay
> > and removing them from sage-on-gentoo (or vice-versa)?  Probably in most
> > cases there are additional fixes in sage-on-gentoo that science users
> > could benefit from (or at least should hurt nobody)?
> 
> Since Christopher and I have access to the science overlay we should
> do some clean up and synchronization.
> Let's see case by case:
> jmol, there are a few differences between mine and the science overlay,
> jeffro and I are not in tune regarding EAPI and that's the main source of
> differences (last time I looked).
> fplll, givaro, iml, m4ri and polybori we are probably ahead. In fact we
> probably put them in science in the first place. symmetrica and gap we are
> probably ahead as well because I am not sure anyone else maintain them.
> 
> Synchronization requires some time.
> 
> About merging. Why not if you are ok with our cruft....

Well, just remove the cruft ;)

> like old pexpect that has moved out of the tree, our own python ebuild (until
> 2.7.3 is finally released), I carry a special version of R for OS X on prefix
> (have to fill the bug for that one). old networkx because the one we need as
> dropped of the main tree....

One thing that comes to mind: Github has some really giganto-awesome
features it seems.  You seem to use them and since science is hosted on
gentoo's infrastructure you don't have the issue tracker and online pull
request mangling.  Actually, it would be great to have those for
science too.

Cheers,
Thomas



-- 
Thomas Kahle
http://dev.gentoo.org/~tomka/

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 316 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-science] sage-on-gentoo and science duplicates

[Burcin Erocal]

Hi Francois,

On Tue, 07 Feb 2012 10:32:15 +1300
fbissey@slingshot.co.nz wrote:

> fplll, givaro, iml, m4ri and polybori we are probably ahead. In fact
> we probably put them in science in the first place. symmetrica and
> gap we are probably ahead as well because I am not sure anyone else
> maintain them.

It might be better to synchronize with the singular ebuild in lmonade
as well. Alexander Dreyer added support for Singular's python interface:

https://bitbucket.org/burcin/lmnd-prefix/src/tip/sci-mathematics/singular/singular-3.1.3.3-r1.ebuild


Cheers,
Burcin