Opened 4 years ago
Closed 2 years ago
#22499 closed enhancement (invalid)
Move SageTeX to Sage repo
Reported by: | kcrisman | Owned by: | |
---|---|---|---|
Priority: | major | Milestone: | sage-duplicate/invalid/wontfix |
Component: | packages: standard | Keywords: | |
Cc: | ddrake, paulmasson, vbraun, dimpase | Merged in: | |
Authors: | Reviewers: | Dima Pasechnik, Karl-Dieter Crisman | |
Report Upstream: | Reported upstream. Developers acknowledge bug. | Work issues: | |
Branch: | Commit: | ||
Dependencies: | #27024 | Stopgaps: |
Description (last modified by )
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:
Change History (24)
comment:1 Changed 4 years ago by
- Description modified (diff)
comment:2 Changed 4 years ago by
comment:3 Changed 4 years ago by
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
.
comment:4 Changed 4 years ago by
- Description modified (diff)
- Status changed from new to needs_review
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.
comment:5 Changed 4 years ago by
- Status changed from needs_review to needs_work
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.
comment:6 Changed 4 years ago by
And needs a new package due to #21450.
comment:7 Changed 4 years ago by
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?
comment:8 Changed 4 years ago by
- Cc vbraun added
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.
comment:9 Changed 3 years ago by
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.
comment:10 Changed 3 years ago by
comment:11 Changed 3 years ago by
comment:12 Changed 3 years ago by
- Dependencies set to #24307, #21450
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.
comment:13 Changed 3 years ago by
- Description modified (diff)
comment:14 Changed 3 years ago by
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.
comment:15 follow-up: ↓ 16 Changed 3 years ago by
There is now a pull request to add example.pdf on github:
comment:16 in reply to: ↑ 15 Changed 3 years ago by
There is now a pull request to add example.pdf on github:
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?
comment:17 follow-up: ↓ 18 Changed 3 years ago by
(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.)
comment:18 in reply to: ↑ 17 Changed 2 years ago by
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.
comment:19 Changed 2 years ago by
- Report Upstream changed from N/A to Reported upstream. Developers acknowledge bug.
comment:20 Changed 2 years ago by
- Cc dimpase added
- Dependencies changed from #24307, #21450 to #27024
Once #27024 is merged I think we can repurpose this for just asking for automatic generation of the examples at the GH site.
comment:21 follow-up: ↓ 23 Changed 2 years ago by
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.
comment:22 Changed 2 years ago by
- Milestone changed from sage-8.0 to sage-duplicate/invalid/wontfix
- Status changed from needs_work to positive_review
comment:23 in reply to: ↑ 21 Changed 2 years ago by
- Reviewers set to Dima Pasechnik, Karl-Dieter Crisman
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.
comment:24 Changed 2 years ago by
- Resolution set to invalid
- Status changed from positive_review to closed
Presuming these are all correctly reviewed as either duplicate, invalid, or wontfix.
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 existingmakefile
be run during setup and the output copied directly toSAGE_SHARE/texmf
without creating a tarball?