Opened 6 years ago

Closed 6 months ago

#18506 closed task (duplicate)

Move PolyBoRi Python bindings to the Sage library

Reported by: ohanar Owned by:
Priority: major Milestone: sage-duplicate/invalid/wontfix
Component: packages: standard Keywords:
Cc: fbissey Merged in:
Authors: Reviewers: François Bissey
Report Upstream: N/A Work issues:
Branch: u/ohanar/polybori_bindings (Commits, GitHub, GitLab) Commit: a05ce2d0ca39f83c5579823746fceef042c659a1
Dependencies: Stopgaps:

Status badges

Description (last modified by slelievre)

Broken off of #18437.

Reasoning: PolyBoRi? is no longer being actively developed, moving the python bindings into the sage library distributes the burden of maintenance across the sage community.


Note: solved by the following tickets

  • #30332: Merge sage_brial into sagelib (merged in Sage 9.2.beta11)
  • #30618: clean up pypolybori (merged in Sage 9.2.rc0)

Change History (12)

comment:1 Changed 6 years ago by ohanar

  • Status changed from new to needs_review

comment:2 Changed 6 years ago by ohanar

  • Component changed from PLEASE CHANGE to packages: standard
  • Type changed from PLEASE CHANGE to task

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

What is the relation to #18437 and do you need a new polybori spkg for this ticket to work?

comment:4 in reply to: ↑ 3 Changed 6 years ago by ohanar

Replying to fbissey:

What is the relation to #18437 and do you need a new polybori spkg for this ticket to work?

No, you should not need the new spkg. I just split off the bindings as per Jeroen's request.

Last edited 6 years ago by ohanar (previous) (diff)

comment:5 Changed 6 years ago by jdemeyer

  • Status changed from needs_review to needs_info

Like I said on the other ticket, this needs a discussion on sage-devel.

comment:6 follow-up: Changed 6 years ago by ohanar

Jeroen, do you have an alternative proposal for dealing with polybori?

comment:7 in reply to: ↑ 6 ; follow-up: Changed 6 years ago by jdemeyer

Replying to ohanar:

Jeroen, do you have an alternative proposal for dealing with polybori?

Keep it as a separate package.

comment:8 in reply to: ↑ 7 ; follow-up: Changed 6 years ago by ohanar

Replying to jdemeyer:

Replying to ohanar:

Jeroen, do you have an alternative proposal for dealing with polybori?

Keep it as a separate package.

And about the scons dependency?

And, are you volunteering to maintain the separate package? (The point of moving the python bindings to the sage library is to distribute the maintenance, but if you are willing to maintain the separate package, then I'm not opposed to keeping it as a separate package.)

comment:9 in reply to: ↑ 8 Changed 6 years ago by jdemeyer

Replying to ohanar:

And about the scons dependency?

I meant package your github polybori-with-autotools repo as a separate package.

And, are you volunteering to maintain the separate package?

This is not a relevant question. It has to be maintained anyway, inside or outside of Sage. I volunteer for neither.

comment:10 Changed 8 months ago by mkoeppe

  • Authors R. Andrew Ohana deleted
  • Cc fbissey added
  • Milestone changed from sage-6.8 to sage-duplicate/invalid/wontfix
  • Status changed from needs_info to needs_review

Outdated, should be closed

comment:11 Changed 8 months ago by fbissey

  • Reviewers set to François Bissey
  • Status changed from needs_review to positive_review

comment:12 Changed 6 months ago by slelievre

  • Description modified (diff)
  • Resolution set to duplicate
  • Status changed from positive_review to closed

Solved by

  • #30332: Merge sage_brial into sagelib (merged in Sage 9.2.beta11)
  • #30618: clean up pypolybori (merged in Sage 9.2.rc0)
Note: See TracTickets for help on using tickets.