Opened 5 years ago

Closed 16 months ago

#21033 closed defect (duplicate)

package type = pip needs documentation

Reported by: mkoeppe Owned by:
Priority: major Milestone: sage-duplicate/invalid/wontfix
Component: build Keywords:
Cc: vdelecroix, vbraun, embray, jdemeyer, leif, jhpalmieri Merged in:
Authors: Reviewers: Matthias Koeppe, Samuel Lelièvre
Report Upstream: N/A Work issues:
Branch: Commit:
Dependencies: #29287 Stopgaps:

Status badges

Description (last modified by mkoeppe)

There are now several packages where build/pkgs/PACKAGE/type is "pip".

Is there any documentation on this?

Some related tickets:

  • #20218: Use pip to install Python dependencies
  • #19213: For packages listed in build/pkgs/piprules, allow 'sage --optional' to list them
  • #19680: Add mock, pytest, tox, virtualenv optional packages

Discussions:

Change History (14)

comment:1 follow-up: Changed 5 years ago by jdemeyer

I don't know if everybody agrees to "officially" support the pip type packages. It was mainly meant as stopgap for some disappearing old-style packages.

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

  • Description modified (diff)

comment:3 Changed 5 years ago by jdemeyer

Also, shouldn't the way in which a package is installed (traditional way vs. pip way) be orthogonal to whether a package is considered standard, optional, or experimental?

Certainly not standard since we need to ship the sources of standard packages with Sage. They aren't really optional nor experimental either. I see it as just a shortcut to ./sage --pip install PKG.

comment:4 Changed 5 years ago by vbraun

The pip-type package could be enhanced to use a mirrored tarball if there is one, then we could also use it for standard packages. Though really the benefit seems pretty small compared to putting pip install in the spkg-install.

comment:5 in reply to: ↑ 1 Changed 5 years ago by mkoeppe

Replying to jdemeyer:

I don't know if everybody agrees to "officially" support the pip type packages. It was mainly meant as stopgap for some disappearing old-style packages.

"Official" or not, documentation is better than no documentation, no?

comment:6 in reply to: ↑ 2 Changed 5 years ago by mkoeppe

Replying to jdemeyer:

Description modified

Let me ask again my question which you removed from the description above:

I tried to add a package of this type for pypolymake (for #20892), but adding the file build/pkgs/pypolymake/type does not seem to enable "sage -i pypolymake". What am I missing?

comment:7 Changed 5 years ago by mkoeppe

  • Description modified (diff)

comment:8 Changed 5 years ago by mkoeppe

  • Description modified (diff)

comment:9 Changed 5 years ago by mkoeppe

  • Cc leif added
  • Description modified (diff)
  • Milestone changed from sage-7.3 to sage-7.4

comment:10 Changed 19 months ago by mkoeppe

  • Cc jhpalmieri added
  • Milestone changed from sage-7.4 to sage-9.1

comment:11 Changed 19 months ago by mkoeppe

  • Dependencies set to #29287
  • Status changed from new to needs_review

#29287 is adding documentation

comment:12 Changed 19 months ago by mkoeppe

  • Milestone changed from sage-9.1 to sage-duplicate/invalid/wontfix

comment:13 Changed 17 months ago by slelievre

  • Reviewers set to Matthias Koeppe, Samuel Lelièvre
  • Status changed from needs_review to positive_review

Fixed by #29287.

comment:14 Changed 16 months ago by chapoton

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