A script to perform "old spkg -> new-style package"

[Nathann Cohen]

Hello everybody,

I wrote a short bash script that does the following:

1) Create a .tar.gz tarball containing the old .spkg package
2) Create a new-style folder $SAGE_ROOT/build/pkgs/<package name> with
the necessary files

To use this script, you but have to fill 4 variables at the head of the script.

Then, you start it. It will download the stuff, package everything,
and tell you what happens.

When it returns, you will be able to install the package with 'sage -i
<package_name>'.

We thus have an automatic way to build a new-style package rom an old
package. Admittedly it is not pretty, as we build an archive
containing an archive. But it works. And it is better than not being
able to install them.

Use as you see fit (script attached).

Nathann

[Nathann Cohen]

The script is also available there:
http://www.steinertriples.fr/ncohen/tmp/mknewstyle

[Jeroen Demeyer]

On 2015-09-10 19:16, Nathann Cohen wrote:
> Hello everybody,
>
> I wrote a short bash script that does the following:
>
> 1) Create a .tar.gz tarball containing the old .spkg package
> 2) Create a new-style folder $SAGE_ROOT/build/pkgs/<package name> with
> the necessary files

Sorry to say this Nathann, but what's the point?

[Nathann Cohen]

> Sorry to say this Nathann, but what's the point?

We can turn all .spkg files into new-style packages, at once. We would
have only one kind of package, and the other conversation with options
A/B/C/D/E can be forgotten as a result.

Nathann

[Jeroen Demeyer]

On 2015-09-10 19:50, Nathann Cohen wrote:
> the other conversation with options
> A/B/C/D/E can be forgotten as a result.

It seems that people which are against old-style packages are against
them because they are broken. Those people will probably be against
old-converted-to-new-style packages too.

[Simon King]

Hi Jeroen,

On 2015-09-10, Jeroen Demeyer <jdem...@cage.ugent.be> wrote:
> It seems that people which are against old-style packages are against
> them because they are broken. Those people will probably be against
> old-converted-to-new-style packages too.

Didn't Volker say that they are broken BECAUSE they are old-style?

Anyway, I will certainly have a look at the script. Perhaps it will
teach me what I generally have to do in order to make the new-style
magic work.

Best regards,
Simon

[Dima Pasechnik]

Hmm. There are old-style packages that are hopelessly broken, didn't work for
years anyway, e.g. Macaulay2 one.

But otherwise this is a bit strange to read.

[Jeroen Demeyer]

On 2015-09-10 20:12, Simon King wrote:
> Hi Jeroen,
>
> On 2015-09-10, Jeroen Demeyer <jdem...@cage.ugent.be> wrote:
>> It seems that people which are against old-style packages are against
>> them because they are broken. Those people will probably be against
>> old-converted-to-new-style packages too.
>
> Didn't Volker say that they are broken BECAUSE they are old-style?

I don't think so. Apart from the way how they are installed, there is
really no difference between old-style and new-style packages.
Converting a broken old-style package to new-style will just give you a
broken new-style package.

I think that Nathann's script solves a non-existing problem.

[Simon King]

On 2015-09-11, Jeroen Demeyer <jdem...@cage.ugent.be> wrote:
> Converting a broken old-style package to new-style will just give you a
> broken new-style package.
>
> I think that Nathann's script solves a non-existing problem.

Could still be helpful for me. I published a working old-style spkg that
copes with the backward incompatible changes that broke the "official"
optional spkg. So, Nathann's script will hopefully turn a working
old-style package into an ugly but working new-style package. And to the
very least, his script will help me to understand what I have to do in
order to create a "proper" new-style package myself.

Best regards,
Simon

[Jeroen Demeyer]

On 2015-09-11 11:41, Simon King wrote:
> I published a working old-style spkg that
> copes with the backward incompatible changes that broke the "official"
> optional spkg.

Great! Let's just use that and revert #19004. No Nathann script needed.

[Simon King]

Hi Jeroen,

On 2015-09-11, Jeroen Demeyer <jdem...@cage.ugent.be> wrote:

I am not sure if the release manager is willing to have an old-style
optional package, even if it works.

And of course, first there is a review needed. But some parts of the
test suite will probably fail (couldn't test yet), since the spkg used a
data base at sage.math.washington which is not accessible any longer,
and the new location at cohomology.minet.uni-jena.de exists but is not
accessible yet.

So, I merely think of that old-style version 2.1.5 as a courtesy to potential
users, who could install and use it even though some internal issues in
SageMath remain to be sorted out.

Best regards,
Simon