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

Make new-style packages define their type and dependencies #18431

Closed
nathanncohen mannequin opened this issue May 16, 2015 · 25 comments
Closed

Make new-style packages define their type and dependencies #18431

nathanncohen mannequin opened this issue May 16, 2015 · 25 comments

Comments

@nathanncohen
Copy link
Mannequin

nathanncohen mannequin commented May 16, 2015

With this branch, it is not necssary anymore to copy/paste a package's name in four different places in order to make it standard.

This is done by adding two files in each folder:

  • 'type': can contain either 'base', 'standard', 'optional', or 'experimental'
  • 'dependencies': lists the dependencies of a package in "Make" notation.

I regret not having been able to make the 'dependencies' files clearer (they are a copy of the target dependencies form the Makefiles). Making it more human-readable is complicated, as we have to handle the "|" Make character (for order-only-prerequisite). Also, some standard packages depend on targets with are not packages themselves (i.e. prereq).

The commit are split in order to ease the review.

Nathann

CC: @vbraun

Component: build

Author: Nathann Cohen, Jeroen Demeyer

Branch/Commit: f83b0c4

Reviewer: Volker Braun, Jeroen Demeyer, Nathann Cohen

Issue created by migration from https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/18431

@nathanncohen nathanncohen mannequin added this to the sage-6.7 milestone May 16, 2015
@nathanncohen nathanncohen mannequin added c: build labels May 16, 2015
@nathanncohen
Copy link
Mannequin Author

nathanncohen mannequin commented May 16, 2015

Branch: u/ncohen/18341

@nathanncohen nathanncohen mannequin added the s: needs review label May 16, 2015
@sagetrac-git
Copy link
Mannequin

sagetrac-git mannequin commented May 16, 2015

Commit: 77f293f

@sagetrac-git
Copy link
Mannequin

sagetrac-git mannequin commented May 16, 2015

Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:

da192bftrac #18431: match var/pkg names (CONWAY->CONWAY_POLYNOMIALS)
3ff942atrac #18431: match var/pkg names (FFLASFFPACK->FFLAS_FFPACK)
8f7dbe3trac #18431: match var/pkg names (fplll->libfplll)
e1663b5trac #18431: match var/pkg names (gd->libgd)
0928117trac #18431: match var/pkg names (rpy -> rpy2)
fbe2a87trac #18431: match var/pkg names (znpoly -> zn_poly)
4770518trac #18431: Type file for each package+define var from pkg name
3efc9fbtrac #18431: package-specific 'dependencies' files
308cefftrac #18431: Auto-generate make rules for standard packages
77f293ftrac #18431: auto-generated Make target "sage-standard-packages"

@a-andre
Copy link

a-andre commented May 17, 2015

comment:3

In build/pkgs/conway_polynomials/dependencies

CONWAY_POLYNOMIALS depends on depends on ...

@sagetrac-git
Copy link
Mannequin

sagetrac-git mannequin commented May 17, 2015

Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:

e114874trac #18431: typo

@sagetrac-git
Copy link
Mannequin

sagetrac-git mannequin commented May 17, 2015

Changed commit from 77f293f to e114874

@vbraun
Copy link
Member

vbraun commented May 17, 2015

comment:6

Can you replace the tabs by spaces in build/install. Apart from that, lgtm.

@vbraun
Copy link
Member

vbraun commented May 17, 2015

Reviewer: Volker Braun

@sagetrac-git
Copy link
Mannequin

sagetrac-git mannequin commented May 17, 2015

Changed commit from e114874 to 766798e

@sagetrac-git
Copy link
Mannequin

sagetrac-git mannequin commented May 17, 2015

Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:

766798etrac #18431: tab->spaces

@nathanncohen
Copy link
Mannequin Author

nathanncohen mannequin commented May 17, 2015

comment:9

Thanks !

Nathann

@vbraun
Copy link
Member

vbraun commented May 18, 2015

Changed branch from u/ncohen/18341 to 766798e

@vbraun
Copy link
Member

vbraun commented May 18, 2015

Changed commit from 766798e to none

@vbraun
Copy link
Member

vbraun commented May 18, 2015

comment:11

PATCH is not defined in build/Makefile, so rebuilds from scratch fail

@vbraun vbraun reopened this May 18, 2015
@jdemeyer
Copy link

Changed reviewer from Volker Braun to Volker Braun, Jeroen Demeyer, Nathann Cohen

@jdemeyer
Copy link

Last 10 new commits:

fbe2a87trac #18431: match var/pkg names (znpoly -> zn_poly)
4770518trac #18431: Type file for each package+define var from pkg name
3efc9fbtrac #18431: package-specific 'dependencies' files
308cefftrac #18431: Auto-generate make rules for standard packages
77f293ftrac #18431: auto-generated Make target "sage-standard-packages"
e114874trac #18431: typo
766798etrac #18431: tab->spaces
47e438dMerge tag '6.7' into t/18441/base_packages_except_configure_should_be_standard
4de8e37Various changes to build system
f83b0c4Correct variable name

@jdemeyer
Copy link

@jdemeyer
Copy link

Commit: f83b0c4

@jdemeyer
Copy link

Changed author from Nathann Cohen to Nathann Cohen, Jeroen Demeyer

@jdemeyer
Copy link

comment:14

I made this ticket the union of #18431 and #18441, both positively reviewed.

@vbraun
Copy link
Member

vbraun commented May 18, 2015

comment:15

So what am I supposed to merge? can you fix dependencies and milestones?

@nathanncohen
Copy link
Mannequin Author

nathanncohen mannequin commented May 19, 2015

comment:16

I made this ticket the union of #18431 and #18441, both positively reviewed.

Why on earth did you di that? O_o

The two were reviewed, the two would have been merged together O_o

@jdemeyer
Copy link

comment:17

Replying to @vbraun:

So what am I supposed to merge?

The branch on this ticket (which was formerly the branch of #18441 and which includes the commits of #18431).

can you fix dependencies and milestones?

Well, there is no sage-6.8 milestone but apart from that, it should be correct as-is.

@jdemeyer
Copy link

comment:18

Replying to @nathanncohen:

I made this ticket the union of #18431 and #18441, both positively reviewed.

Why on earth did you di that? O_o

Well, I didn't know the release manager's opinion on forcing tickets to be merged together and I didn't want to risk rejection.

@vbraun
Copy link
Member

vbraun commented May 19, 2015

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