Move SageTeX to Sage repo

[kcrisman]

While SageTeX is an awesome and useful thing, the author as of late hasn't had a lot of time for development. SageTeX development is currently at ​Github, which is not being actively managed. Probably it would be easier to just move SageTeX to the Sage repo, which the maintainer in personal correspondence agrees with:

Anyway, I do think integrating SageTeX into the main Sage repo is a good idea. I know there are some pull requests there that I haven't done anything about, and if it was part of the main Sage repo, it would be easier to get those in.

So let's make this happen - or, alternately, make a fork that lives in the Sagemath organization on Github, though that probably still has an extra step to development.

---

Related tickets that might get fixed more quickly if this happens:

• #23085
• #21450
• #17939

[paulmasson]

Karl-Dieter, what did you have in mind with moving SageTex into Sage? The files on GitHub aren't Python except for setup.py. Where would the .dtx files go in the Sage tree? Could the existing makefile be run during setup and the output copied directly to SAGE_SHARE/texmf without creating a tarball?

[kcrisman]

I didn't necessarily have a full idea - just putting it out there. If it makes more sense for these reasons to just move SageTeX to the Sage org on GH, that is okay too - that would still necessitate at least some doc changes. I don't really know the answers to these questions, I'm sorry. That said, putting this whole thing in the same place as the Mac app seems reasonable - e.g. ​here make a directory src/sagetex instead of src/mac-app.

[aapitzsch]

SageTex? became part of sagemath on GitHub (​https://github.com/sagemath/sagetex, ​https://www.mail-archive.com/sage-devel@googlegroups.com/msg90231.html)

I think this issue can be closed now.

[kcrisman]

Apparently Sage still at least in some places refers to SageTeX being on bitbucket, so that should be fixed too. Any file of the form src/doc/**/tutorial/sagetex.rst needs to be changed.

[kcrisman]

And needs a new package due to #21450.

[kcrisman]

In addition, one needs to change things so that

There is also an example file in the same directory – see example.tex and example.pdf, the pre-built result of typesetting that file with LaTeX and Sage. You can also get those files from the SageTeX bitbucket page.

is now correct. On github those pdf files will definitely not be available. Any ideas?

[kcrisman]

AND indeed the very serious issue that one cannot (or at least should not) rename/move Sage installations will come into play! Not sure if this is recommended anywhere in the documentation but certainly currently TeXShop recommends it.

[jdemeyer]

What's the idea here? Do we still want to move SageTeX to the Sage repo or not? It shouldn't be hard to do that.

[chapoton]

​https://github.com/sagemath/sagetex ?

[kcrisman]

What needs to be done now is updating documentation, see comment:5, comment:6, comment:7. Basically, updating documentation so that it is correct (and people know where to find examples etc.).

Naturally, we could move it to the Sage repo proper as well, but that is not necessary for this ticket.

[kcrisman]

So comment:5 is dealt with in #24307. It would be good to have (in a separate ticket) all such files at least have a fleeting reference to this location.

And comment:6 is #21450 which should be fairly easy for someone.

So all that would remain is getting a pdf version available outside of a Sage installation, e.g. on the github page.

[kcrisman]

On a separate note, someone should look at what information from #14343 is still not available in Sage, but that is separate from this ticket.

[chapoton]

There is now a pull request to add example.pdf on github:

​https://github.com/sagemath/sagetex/pulls

[kcrisman]

There is now a pull request to add example.pdf on github:

​https://github.com/sagemath/sagetex/pulls

Thanks, but what I meant was that we need a way to also easily update example.pdf, e.g. if we merge the other pull requests there. I don't think we want to update that every time. Not sure how this worked in bitbucket. Any ideas for that part of the workflow?

[kcrisman]

(Also, I don't know who has commit access on that repo now; do you remember the email where that was done? Presumably at least William and Volker do.)

[dimpase]

Replying to kcrisman:

(Also, I don't know who has commit access on that repo now; do you remember the email where that was done? Presumably at least William and Volker do.)

I do have commit access, but I had notifications turned off for that repo, sorry. They are on now.

[kcrisman]

Once something like ​ST PR 20 and ​ST PR 21 are merged, the last thing needed for this ticket is to have an automated way to update the two pdfs on the ST GH site.

[kcrisman]

Once #27024 is merged I think we can repurpose this for just asking for automatic generation of the examples at the GH site.

[dimpase]

I cannot imagine doing automatic generation at GH without hooking it up on a CI system like Travis CI, something that is not really possible atm. I think it's OK just to document that pdfs are uploaded with the tarball, while making a release.

[kcrisman]

I cannot imagine doing automatic generation at GH without hooking it up on a CI system like Travis CI, something that is not really possible atm. I think it's OK just to document that pdfs are uploaded with the tarball, while making a release.

And this is documented at ​this commit so I concur, thank you very much.

[embray]

Presuming these are all correctly reviewed as either duplicate, invalid, or wontfix.