Opened 5 years ago

Closed 5 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 charpent)

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 5 years ago by charpent

  • Description modified (diff)

comment:2 follow-up: Changed 5 years ago by jdemeyer

  • Milestone changed from sage-6.7 to sage-duplicate/invalid/wontfix
  • Status changed from new to needs_review

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.

comment:3 in reply to: ↑ 2 ; follow-up: Changed 5 years ago by charpent

  • 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: Changed 5 years ago by 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 :

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: Changed 5 years ago by charpent

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 :

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 5 years ago by jdemeyer

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 5 years ago by jdemeyer

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 5 years ago by aapitzsch

  • 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 5 years ago by jdemeyer

  • Reviewers set to Jeroen Demeyer
  • Status changed from needs_review to positive_review

comment:10 Changed 5 years ago by vbraun

  • Resolution set to invalid
  • Status changed from positive_review to closed
Note: See TracTickets for help on using tickets.