Opened 6 years ago

Closed 6 years ago

#14246 closed defect (fixed)

installation guide has wrong location for SageTeX documentation

Reported by: ddrake Owned by: mvngu
Priority: minor Milestone: sage-5.9
Component: documentation Keywords:
Cc: kcrisman Merged in: sage-5.9.beta2
Authors: Dan Drake Reviewers: Karl-Dieter Crisman
Report Upstream: N/A Work issues:
Branch: Commit:
Dependencies: Stopgaps:

Description (last modified by ddrake)

As noted on sage-support, the installation guide claims that the SageTeX documentation is in SAGE_ROOT/local/share/texmf/tex/generic/sagetex, but it is actually in SAGE_ROOT/local/share/doc/sagetex.

Also, it may be appropriate to install the example.tex file into that doc directory, instead of the texmf directory.

Apply: attachment:trac_14246.patch and include the new spkg: http://boxen.math.washington.edu/home/drake/code/sage/st/sagetex-2.3.4.spkg.

Attachments (1)

trac_14246.patch (2.2 KB) - added by ddrake 6 years ago.

Download all attachments as: .zip

Change History (18)

comment:1 Changed 6 years ago by kcrisman

  • Cc kcrisman added

Changed 6 years ago by ddrake

comment:2 Changed 6 years ago by ddrake

  • Authors set to Dan Drake
  • Description modified (diff)
  • Status changed from new to needs_review

The patch fixes the installation guide, and the new spkg is identical to the old one, except that it also puts example.tex into the documentation directory. (In the src directory: example.tex is listed twice, once for the texmf directory, and once for the docs directory. Yes, I am deliberately wasting 20 kilobytes of disk space.)

comment:3 follow-up: Changed 6 years ago by kcrisman

  • Reviewers set to Karl-Dieter Crisman
  • Status changed from needs_review to needs_work
  • Work issues set to spkg issues

The spkg seems to have an spkg inside it, or at least a directory, and also has a .DS_Store file at the top level. Did you create this correctly?

The patch is fine, and bitbucket corresponds to this, and the 20K is no problem - you didn't include any pdfs! - so otherwise this is ready to go.

comment:4 in reply to: ↑ 3 ; follow-up: Changed 6 years ago by ddrake

Replying to kcrisman:

The spkg seems to have an spkg inside it, or at least a directory, and also has a .DS_Store file at the top level. Did you create this correctly?

I just downloaded the linked spkg and did tar tjvf sagetex-2.3.4.spkg | grep DS and it returns nothing. So that file is from you, most likely. Also, when I unpack it, I get a regular directory structure.

The patch is fine, and bitbucket corresponds to this, and the 20K is no problem - you didn't include any pdfs!

Hmm, there are two PDFs -- sagetex.pdf and example.pdf. But example.tex should be the only thing duplicated.

comment:5 in reply to: ↑ 4 ; follow-up: Changed 6 years ago by kcrisman

The spkg seems to have an spkg inside it, or at least a directory, and also has a .DS_Store file at the top level. Did you create this correctly?

I just downloaded the linked spkg and did tar tjvf sagetex-2.3.4.spkg | grep DS and it returns nothing. So that file is from you, most likely. Also, when I unpack it, I get a regular directory structure.

Okay, I'll check again. I can't believe it was added so quickly!

Okay, you were right on that, but there is however something additional - namely, the checksum. Do other spkgs come with their own checksum? I don't believe so. (That is what confused my computer, I think.)

The patch is fine, and bitbucket corresponds to this, and the 20K is no problem - you didn't include any pdfs!

Hmm, there are two PDFs -- sagetex.pdf and example.pdf. But example.tex should be the only thing duplicated.

That's what I meant. No pdfs in the texmf directory, so only one additional document, as you said. I guess I should have so "any additional pdfs".

comment:6 in reply to: ↑ 5 Changed 6 years ago by ddrake

Replying to kcrisman:

Okay, you were right on that, but there is however something additional - namely, the checksum. Do other spkgs come with their own checksum? I don't believe so. (That is what confused my computer, I think.)

They don't. There was an old ticket (#329) for including such checksums and I tried to get it included, but at this point I don't think it's going anywhere. I should probably stop including the checksum.

comment:7 Changed 6 years ago by kcrisman

I'd say that until #329 is in, that would be wise, though Minh apparently thought otherwise when this was added. I guess it didn't hurt anyone for three years to have it there!

comment:8 Changed 6 years ago by ddrake

  • Status changed from needs_work to needs_review

I've updated the spkg so it doesn't include the checksum stuff. This now ready for review.

comment:9 follow-up: Changed 6 years ago by kcrisman

I don't see any changes in the spkg, though, other than that being missing - is that not something that is committed? I also notice

Finally, note that you can actually use SageTeX without Sage! The
`remote-sagetex.py` script uses any remote Sage server to do the
computations for you. If you can't or don't want to install Sage on your
computer, you can use the `remote-sagetex` script to use SageTeX,
although if you are in such a situation, you probably want to get
SageTeX [[http://tug.ctan.org/pkg/sagetex|from CTAN]] instead of
downloading this spkg.

in SPKG.txt. That's not right, is it? Unless you updated it for the cell server or something... ? In fact, SPKG.txt doesn't seem to be up to date. Maybe all that stuff can be removed now in any case. The author's web page might need updating too :)

comment:10 in reply to: ↑ 9 Changed 6 years ago by ddrake

Replying to kcrisman:

I don't see any changes in the spkg, though, other than that being missing - is that not something that is committed?

The only change in the spkg should be that setup.py also installs example.tex into the "doc" directory, and an entry in SPKG.txt.

I know that there's a bunch of ancient cruft in there that should get cleaned up but perhaps we'll do that in another ticket.

comment:11 follow-up: Changed 6 years ago by kcrisman

If you open that ticket, positive review here. But what I meant was that I didn't see any changes that led to the checksum being removed. How did that happen?

comment:12 in reply to: ↑ 11 Changed 6 years ago by ddrake

Replying to kcrisman:

But what I meant was that I didn't see any changes that led to the checksum being removed. How did that happen?

I changed the script I use to make the spkg: see http://boxen.math.washington.edu/home/drake/code/sage/st/make-spkg

comment:13 follow-up: Changed 6 years ago by kcrisman

  • Status changed from needs_review to positive_review

I see. Ideally, that should be somewhere in the spkg... ? I think that at least a few of them have that. Anyway, whatever.

comment:14 Changed 6 years ago by ddrake

The clean-up-the-cruft ticket is #14363.

comment:15 Changed 6 years ago by jdemeyer

  • Work issues spkg issues deleted

comment:16 in reply to: ↑ 13 Changed 6 years ago by jdemeyer

Replying to kcrisman:

I see. Ideally, that should be somewhere in the spkg... ? I think that at least a few of them have that. Anyway, whatever.

You should have a file spkg-dist to create a spkg file, although I think you should not add such checksums as long as #329 isn't merged.

comment:17 Changed 6 years ago by jdemeyer

  • Merged in set to sage-5.9.beta2
  • Resolution set to fixed
  • Status changed from positive_review to closed
Note: See TracTickets for help on using tickets.