search

cschwan / sage-on-gentoo

(Unofficial) Gentoo Overlay for Sage- and Sage-related ebuilds
84 stars 26 forks source link

Use core tar.gz without packages #735

Closed fingolfin closed 1 year ago

fingolfin commented 1 year ago

... as it does contain the HTML docs with recent GAP versions.

Caveat: I have not actually tested this PR, as I don't use Gentoo.

kiwifb commented 1 year ago

I tried to do it before and there was stuff missing. I certainly will take a look if you say it is all good now.

fingolfin commented 1 year ago

If there is "stuff missing", then we (upstream) would appreciate if there was communication with us to inform us about it, then we can enter a constructive dialog to figure out a way forward :-).

kiwifb commented 1 year ago

I certainly will let you know if that happens. I guess a somewhat related issue is that not 100% of gap packages have a git repo and therefore no "more or less permanent" mirror for their releases. A small number packages which are on github do not have proper releases either. At least, I can pull a git commit, but it is not good. I kind of got around of all the problematic situation one way or another now, but in the past, the full tarball was the only sure fire way of having some of the packages.

kiwifb commented 1 year ago

I am currently manually installing Makefile.gappkg under /usr/share/gap/etc/. I use it to update/use for any package that has/need it. Is it going away? If not, it would be nice to have it properly installed somewhere.

fingolfin commented 1 year ago

I certainly will let you know if that happens. I guess a somewhat related issue is that not 100% of gap packages have a git repo and therefore no "more or less permanent" mirror for their releases.

I am not sure I understand. How are the tarball file releases of these packages any more or less permanent than tarballs hosted on any other kind of website?

A small number packages which are on github do not have proper releases either.

Again, I am confused: The GAP package distribution exclusively contains packages that make their releases available "properly", i.e., as a release archive somewhere. Could you point out an example or two, then I'll investigate.

At least, I can pull a git commit, but it is not good.

Of course, we don't do that either :-). Only "proper" .tar.gz (or .tar.bz2, or .zip) downloads are accepted by us.

I kind of got around of all the problematic situation one way or another now, but in the past, the full tarball was the only sure fire way of having some of the packages.

I won't exclude the possibility that this was the case in the distant past, but for releases made in recent years, it shouldn't ever be the case. If you have concrete examples, I'd love to hear about them so we can address this (by talking to the package authors, adding mirrors, whatever)

fingolfin commented 1 year ago

I am currently manually installing Makefile.gappkg under /usr/share/gap/etc/. I use it to update/use for any package that has/need it.

We considered doing that at some point, but have abandoned this idea, and I would recommend against it. In practice it causes more problems than it solves. I.e., the cases where updating Makefile.gappkg by blindly copying a different version over the version in the package is beneficial are almost non-existent -- indeed, we run extensive CI tests on all distributed packages before releasing them, and all builds we make of those packages are using the Makefile.gappkg bundled with them, so if there was a problem, we should discover it at this stage.

On the other hand, copying the Makefile.gappkg this way can cause problems. E.g. some packages have slightly different versions of Makefile.gappkg these days with minor patches. Eradicating these differences may or may not cause problems...

So in a nutshell: just don't do this?

Is it going away? If not, it would be nice to have it properly installed somewhere.

It is not going away, it is there as a reference for package authors. But we don't install it because there is no need (from our POV) to do so...