Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Sphinx tarball needs renaming #18341

Closed
EmmanuelCharpentier mannequin opened this issue Apr 30, 2015 · 9 comments
Closed

Sphinx tarball needs renaming #18341

EmmanuelCharpentier mannequin opened this issue Apr 30, 2015 · 9 comments

Comments

@EmmanuelCharpentier
Copy link
Mannequin

EmmanuelCharpentier mannequin commented Apr 30, 2015

Sphinx is built from Sphinx-1.2.2.tar.gz. it turns out that sage -sh sage-fix-pkg-checksums, that computes the checksums, will treat only lower-case-named tarballs ... except on Macs, whose filesystems will find Sphinx-1.2.2.tar.gz when asked for sphinx-1.2.2.tar.gz. See #18229 for discussion.

This is documented in the Developer's guide, paragraph "Directory structure", that states :

"The build scripts and associated files are in a subdirectory SAGE_ROOT/build/pkgs/package, where you replace package with a lower-case version of the upstream project name."

I suppose that the original Sphinx porter might have been a Mac user, and that nobody caught the problem.

HTH,

Component: packages: standard

Reviewer: Jeroen Demeyer

Issue created by migration from https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/18341

@EmmanuelCharpentier EmmanuelCharpentier mannequin added this to the sage-6.7 milestone Apr 30, 2015
@EmmanuelCharpentier

This comment has been minimized.

@jdemeyer
Copy link

comment:2

What's the problem really? I don't think it is a requirement that the tarball name matches the package name. It builds and the current checksums are correct, so...? The next person to update the package can still rename the tarball.

@jdemeyer jdemeyer removed this from the sage-6.7 milestone Apr 30, 2015
@EmmanuelCharpentier
Copy link
Mannequin Author

EmmanuelCharpentier mannequin commented Apr 30, 2015

comment:3

Replying to @jdemeyer:

What's the problem really? I don't think it is a requirement that the tarball name matches the package name.

It is :

  • Developer's guide requirement, as quoted in the ticket description
  • The current sage-fix-spkg-checksums won't update the checksums on anything but a Mac with their pseudo-case-sensitive filesystem. See Upgrade R to 3.2.0 #18229 for an exchange between François Bissey and myself.

It builds and the current checksums are correct,

How do you know ? You don't have a way to know that unless you're on a Mac or you're recomputing the checksums by hand (sage-fix-spkg-checksums won't do it on anything but a Mac).

so...? The next person to update the package can still rename the tarball.

I agree that the lower-case tarball requirement seems odd. It has been a thorn in my bu...err...backside since I started to keep R up-to-date. But the problem exists, and won't go away until the parts of the build system that are tarball-case-sensitive are fixed.

I posted something to that effect on sage-devel. Could we move this discussion there ?

In the interim, status ==> needs_work.

@EmmanuelCharpentier EmmanuelCharpentier mannequin added this to the sage-6.7 milestone Apr 30, 2015
@jdemeyer
Copy link

comment:4

Replying to @EmmanuelCharpentier:

Replying to @jdemeyer:

What's the problem really? I don't think it is a requirement that the tarball name matches the package name.

It is :

Not really, that just says something about the name of the directory in build/pkgs.

  • The current sage-fix-spkg-checksums won't update the checksums on anything but a Mac

That's true, but is that a reason to rename the tarball now?

It builds and the current checksums are correct,

How do you know ?

Because make succeeds.

@EmmanuelCharpentier
Copy link
Mannequin Author

EmmanuelCharpentier mannequin commented Apr 30, 2015

comment:5

Replying to @jdemeyer:

Replying to @EmmanuelCharpentier:

Replying to @jdemeyer:

What's the problem really? I don't think it is a requirement that the tarball name matches the package name.

It is :

Not really, that just says something about the name of the directory in build/pkgs.

< Insert "consistency" sermon here ... >

  • The current sage-fix-spkg-checksums won't update the checksums on anything but a Mac

That's true, but is that a reason to rename the tarball now?

Yes : you might get run over by a truck, and the next maintainer of (P|p)illow, who might not be a Mac user, would be stuck with the mess...

It builds and the current checksums are correct,

How do you know ?

Because make succeeds.

... On your Mac ! Or with the current (P|p)illow version. Again, it's the maintenance that seems problematic.

HTH,

@jdemeyer
Copy link

comment:6

Replying to @EmmanuelCharpentier:

Not really, that just says something about the name of the directory in build/pkgs.

< Insert "consistency" sermon here ... >

If you want consistency, then make this a ticket about enforcing consistency, not about renaming one random tarball.

@jdemeyer
Copy link

comment:7

Replying to @EmmanuelCharpentier:

  • The current sage-fix-spkg-checksums won't update the checksums on anything but a Mac

That's true, but is that a reason to rename the tarball now?

Yes : you might get run over by a truck, and the next maintainer of (P|p)illow, who might not be a Mac user, would be stuck with the mess...

You think that it will make maintaining Pillow easier if we rename the Pillow tarball now? If you really believe that, then I guess it's worth renaming the tarball now.

... On your Mac !

I don't have a Mac and still my Sage builds fine. The checksums are equally correct on my Linux machine than on somebody else's Mac.

@a-andre
Copy link

a-andre commented May 25, 2015

comment:8

sage -sh sage-fix-pkg-checksums works for me. Also Sphinx-1.2.2.tar.gz is treated.

@a-andre a-andre removed this from the sage-6.7 milestone May 25, 2015
@jdemeyer
Copy link

jdemeyer commented Jun 6, 2015

Reviewer: Jeroen Demeyer

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants