Ticket #12713 (closed enhancement: fixed)
Excise MoinMoin
| Reported by: | kini | Owned by: | tbd |
|---|---|---|---|
| Priority: | major | Milestone: | sage-5.0 |
| Component: | packages: standard | Keywords: | |
| Cc: | Work issues: | ||
| Report Upstream: | N/A | Reviewers: | Jeroen Demeyer |
| Authors: | John Palmieri | Merged in: | sage-5.0.beta13 |
| Dependencies: | #10492, #12515 | Stopgaps: |
Description (last modified by jdemeyer) (diff)
We should get rid of MoinMoin as a standard spkg. It is not used by anything in Sage AFAIK. (There has been some discussion about this on sage-devel.) In particular, there was a vote in which (as of March 28) no one objected to removing MoinMoin. There wasn't great consensus about what to do with the package afterwards, but making it "experimental" has support and seems like the right choice: then it is still available but no one has to commit to be the maintainer.
To apply:
- Remove the file spkg/standard/moin-1.9.1.p2.spkg.
- Apply trac_12713-root.patch to the root repository.
- Apply trac_12713-sage.patch and 12713-sage-review.patch to the Sage repository.
- Apply trac_12713-scripts.patch to the scripts repository.
- Apply trac_12713-sagenb.patch to the sagenb repository.
Attachments
-
trac_12713-moin.patch
(1.4 KB) -
added by jhpalmieri 15 months ago.
- root repo
-
trac_12713-root.patch
(1.8 KB) -
added by jhpalmieri 15 months ago.
- root repo
-
trac_12713-scripts.patch
(650 bytes) -
added by jhpalmieri 15 months ago.
- scripts repo
-
trac_12713-sage.patch
(50.8 KB) -
added by jhpalmieri 15 months ago.
- Sage library
-
trac_12713-sagenb.patch
(44.4 KB) -
added by jhpalmieri 15 months ago.
- sagenb
-
12713-sage-review.patch
(596 bytes) -
added by jdemeyer 15 months ago.
Change History
comment:2 Changed 15 months ago by jhpalmieri
For what it's worth, I removed the moin spkg and modified spkg/install and spkg/standard/deps in the obvious ways. Sage built and all tests passed.
comment:3 follow-up: ↓ 5 Changed 15 months ago by jhpalmieri
- Status changed from new to needs_review
- Description modified (diff)
- Authors set to John Palmieri
Here's a patch. If we go through with this, should we keep MoinMoin as an optional spkg? Probably we should.
comment:5 in reply to: ↑ 3 Changed 15 months ago by leif
Replying to jhpalmieri:
Here's a patch. If we go through with this, should we keep MoinMoin as an optional spkg? Probably we should.
Yes! (Make it an optional spkg.) Incidentally, that's what I was thinking of yesterday as well, and a couple of times before...
comment:6 Changed 15 months ago by jdemeyer
- Status changed from needs_review to needs_info
I guess this is something which should be discussed properly on sage-devel first...
comment:7 Changed 15 months ago by jhpalmieri
- Status changed from needs_info to needs_review
- Description modified (diff)
comment:8 follow-up: ↓ 11 Changed 15 months ago by jdemeyer
- Status changed from needs_review to needs_work
There's slightly more to do: remove the sage -wiki command line option and remove some files related to Moin Moin Wiki in the Sage library (sorry, I haven't checked which files, but I'm sure there is something).
comment:9 Changed 15 months ago by jhpalmieri
- Status changed from needs_work to needs_review
- Description modified (diff)
Here are new patches.
comment:10 follow-up: ↓ 15 Changed 15 months ago by jhpalmieri
comment:11 in reply to: ↑ 8 Changed 15 months ago by leif
Replying to jdemeyer:
There's slightly more to do: remove the sage -wiki command line option and remove some files related to Moin Moin Wiki in the Sage library (sorry, I haven't checked which files, but I'm sure there is something).
Should we really remove all traces of MoinMoin (or any kind of wiki) from Sage?
If we keep it as an optional (or experimental) spkg, we could treat it as such, just like the others. I.e., just add checks whether it is present / installed, and give messages according to the result.
comment:12 follow-up: ↓ 13 Changed 15 months ago by kini
For an optional spkg, maybe, but do we really maintain (or need to maintain) library/interface support for experimental packages?
comment:13 in reply to: ↑ 12 Changed 15 months ago by leif
Replying to kini:
For an optional spkg, maybe, but do we really maintain (or need to maintain) library/interface support for experimental packages?
Well, I don't have strong feelings about that, but probably there are Sage users out there who really used that stuff... :-)
comment:14 Changed 15 months ago by jhpalmieri
Since no one on sage-devel objected to the removal of MoinMoin, I think we can do this. If someone wants to restore the functionality, they can just restore the files from sage/server/wiki: that's the whole purpose of having a repository, right? The only other possibility, I think, is to not only add checks for the presence of the package, but also to add doctests to the file sage/server/wiki/moin.py. Removing the files is by far the path of least resistance. Oh, Leif, unless you're volunteering...
comment:15 in reply to: ↑ 10 Changed 15 months ago by jdemeyer
Replying to jhpalmieri:
The Sage library patch conflicts somewhat with #11409. If #11409 is merged first, then the Sage library patch here may be ignored. If this is merged first, then #11409 will need rebasing.
It is unlikely that #11409 will get merged any time soon (unfortunately).
comment:17 Changed 15 months ago by jdemeyer
- Status changed from needs_review to needs_work
The file
doc/en/reference/networking.rst
should also be removed, and index.rst modified accordingly.
comment:18 Changed 15 months ago by jhpalmieri
- Status changed from needs_work to needs_review
Okay, here's a new patch which does that.
comment:19 Changed 15 months ago by jhpalmieri
- Description modified (diff)
Do we also need a patch for sagenb, removing sagenb/notebook/wiki2html.py? Here is one.
comment:20 Changed 15 months ago by jdemeyer
You forgot this (sage library):
-
setup.py
diff --git a/setup.py b/setup.py
a b 1008 1008 'sage.server.simple', 1009 1009 'sage.server.notebook', 1010 1010 'sage.server.notebook.compress', 1011 'sage.server.wiki',1012 1011 'sage.server.trac', 1013 1012 1014 1013 'sage.structure',
comment:21 Changed 15 months ago by jdemeyer
- Status changed from needs_review to needs_work
- Reviewers set to Jeroen Demeyer
positive_review if setup.py is fixed.
comment:22 Changed 15 months ago by jdemeyer
- Status changed from needs_work to positive_review
- Description modified (diff)
comment:23 Changed 15 months ago by jhpalmieri
Thank you for taking care of that last piece.
comment:24 Changed 15 months ago by jdemeyer
- Status changed from positive_review to closed
- Resolution set to fixed
- Merged in set to sage-5.0.beta13
