Opened 7 years ago
Closed 7 years ago
#18341 closed defect (invalid)
Sphinx tarball needs renaming
Reported by: | charpent | Owned by: | |
---|---|---|---|
Priority: | major | Milestone: | sage-duplicate/invalid/wontfix |
Component: | packages: standard | Keywords: | |
Cc: | Merged in: | ||
Authors: | Reviewers: | Jeroen Demeyer | |
Report Upstream: | N/A | Work issues: | |
Branch: | Commit: | ||
Dependencies: | Stopgaps: |
Description (last modified by )
Sphinx is built from Sphinx-1.2.2.tar.gz
. it turns out that sage -sh sage-fix-pkg-checksums
, that computes the checksums, will treat only lower-case-named tarballs ... except on Macs, whose filesystems will find Sphinx-1.2.2.tar.gz
when asked for sphinx-1.2.2.tar.gz
. See #18229 for discussion.
This is documented in the Developer's guide, paragraph "Directory structure", that states :
"The build scripts and associated files are in a subdirectory SAGE_ROOT/build/pkgs/package, where you replace package with a lower-case version of the upstream project name."
I suppose that the original Sphinx porter might have been a Mac user, and that nobody caught the problem.
HTH,
Change History (10)
comment:1 Changed 7 years ago by
- Description modified (diff)
comment:2 follow-up: ↓ 3 Changed 7 years ago by
- Milestone changed from sage-6.7 to sage-duplicate/invalid/wontfix
- Status changed from new to needs_review
comment:3 in reply to: ↑ 2 ; follow-up: ↓ 4 Changed 7 years ago by
- Milestone changed from sage-duplicate/invalid/wontfix to sage-6.7
- Status changed from needs_review to needs_info
Replying to jdemeyer:
What's the problem really? I don't think it is a requirement that the tarball name matches the package name.
It is :
- Developer's guide requirement, as quoted in the ticket description
- The current sage-fix-spkg-checksums won't update the checksums on anything but a Mac with their pseudo-case-sensitive filesystem. See #18229 for an exchange between François Bissey and myself.
It builds and the current checksums are correct,
How do you know ? You don't have a way to know that unless you're on a Mac or you're recomputing the checksums by hand (sage-fix-spkg-checksums won't do it on anything but a Mac).
so...? The next person to update the package can still rename the tarball.
I agree that the lower-case tarball requirement seems odd. It has been a thorn in my bu...err...backside since I started to keep R up-to-date. But the problem exists, and won't go away until the parts of the build system that are tarball-case-sensitive are fixed.
I posted something to that effect on sage-devel. Could we move this discussion there ?
In the interim, status ==> needs_work.
comment:4 in reply to: ↑ 3 ; follow-up: ↓ 5 Changed 7 years ago by
Replying to charpent:
Replying to jdemeyer:
What's the problem really? I don't think it is a requirement that the tarball name matches the package name.
It is :
- Developer's guide requirement, as quoted in the ticket description
Not really, that just says something about the name of the directory in build/pkgs
.
- The current sage-fix-spkg-checksums won't update the checksums on anything but a Mac
That's true, but is that a reason to rename the tarball now?
It builds and the current checksums are correct,
How do you know ?
Because make
succeeds.
comment:5 in reply to: ↑ 4 ; follow-ups: ↓ 6 ↓ 7 Changed 7 years ago by
Replying to jdemeyer:
Replying to charpent:
Replying to jdemeyer:
What's the problem really? I don't think it is a requirement that the tarball name matches the package name.
It is :
- Developer's guide requirement, as quoted in the ticket description
Not really, that just says something about the name of the directory in
build/pkgs
.
< Insert "consistency" sermon here ... >
- The current sage-fix-spkg-checksums won't update the checksums on anything but a Mac
That's true, but is that a reason to rename the tarball now?
Yes : you might get run over by a truck, and the next maintainer of (P|p)illow, who might not be a Mac user, would be stuck with the mess...
It builds and the current checksums are correct,
How do you know ?
Because
make
succeeds.
... On your Mac ! Or with the current (P|p)illow version. Again, it's the maintenance that seems problematic.
HTH,
comment:6 in reply to: ↑ 5 Changed 7 years ago by
Replying to charpent:
Not really, that just says something about the name of the directory in
build/pkgs
.< Insert "consistency" sermon here ... >
If you want consistency, then make this a ticket about enforcing consistency, not about renaming one random tarball.
comment:7 in reply to: ↑ 5 Changed 7 years ago by
Replying to charpent:
- The current sage-fix-spkg-checksums won't update the checksums on anything but a Mac
That's true, but is that a reason to rename the tarball now?
Yes : you might get run over by a truck, and the next maintainer of (P|p)illow, who might not be a Mac user, would be stuck with the mess...
You think that it will make maintaining Pillow easier if we rename the Pillow tarball now? If you really believe that, then I guess it's worth renaming the tarball now.
... On your Mac !
I don't have a Mac and still my Sage builds fine. The checksums are equally correct on my Linux machine than on somebody else's Mac.
comment:8 Changed 7 years ago by
- Milestone changed from sage-6.7 to sage-duplicate/invalid/wontfix
- Status changed from needs_info to needs_review
sage -sh sage-fix-pkg-checksums
works for me. Also Sphinx-1.2.2.tar.gz
is treated.
comment:9 Changed 7 years ago by
- Reviewers set to Jeroen Demeyer
- Status changed from needs_review to positive_review
comment:10 Changed 7 years ago by
- Resolution set to invalid
- Status changed from positive_review to closed
What's the problem really? I don't think it is a requirement that the tarball name matches the package name. It builds and the current checksums are correct, so...? The next person to update the package can still rename the tarball.