#29022 closed enhancement (wontfix)
Make sagelib installation directory more flexible by creating a module src/sage/env_config.py from src/sage/env_config.py.in, defining variables for use in sage.env
Reported by:  mkoeppe  Owned by:  

Priority:  major  Milestone:  sageduplicate/invalid/wontfix 
Component:  build  Keywords:  
Cc:  fbissey, arojas, isuruf, embray, infinity0, ghtimokau, jdemeyer, dimpase, jhpalmieri  Merged in:  
Authors:  Matthias Koeppe  Reviewers:  Dima Pasechnik, Erik Bray 
Report Upstream:  N/A  Work issues:  
Branch:  u/mkoeppe/create_module_src_sage_env_config_py_from_src_sage_env_config_py_in__defining_variables_for_use_in_sage_env (Commits, GitHub, GitLab)  Commit:  7a435448517b4cae9825943447d2eaf77757a4a6 
Dependencies:  Stopgaps: 
Description (last modified by )
This is a followup from #28225  "Allow sage to run in the absence of sageenv
". The present ticket also allows $SAGE_LOCAL/bin/python
to run and import sage.all
in the absence of the shell script sageenv
. (Getting a fully functional sage.all
is future work.)
This ticket also makes sagelib more independent from the environment variables set by src/bin/sageenv
(local/bin/sageenv
), and to remove assumptions regarding install locations of sagelib relative to $SAGE_LOCAL
.
 To support users who want to install an experimental version of sagelib in other install locations, such as in a user site packages directory.
 For making sagelib available in a user's venv, as in the following example:
Without this ticket:
$ sage python m venv systemsitepackages ~/personalsagevenv/ $ source ~/personalsagevenv/bin/activate (personalsagevenv) $ python >>> import sage.env >>> sage.env.SAGE_LOCAL '/Users/mkoeppe/personalsagevenv' # wrong >>> import sage.all RuntimeError: You must get the file local/bin/sagemaxima.lispWith this ticket:
>>> sage.env.SAGE_LOCAL '/Users/mkoeppe/s/sage/sagerebasing/worktreealgebraic2018spring/local' >>> import sage.all >>> sage.all.maxima('1') 1
 To support #29013/#27824: spkgconfigure.m4 for python3
 To make it possible for distributions to use a stock
src/sage/env.py
(providing a customsrc/sage/env_conf.py
).
In a first step, we just set SAGE_LOCAL
and MAXIMA
(to the location of the maxima
binary), but also SAGE_ROOT
could be added (for developer conveniences such as sage.misc.edit_module; see also #25486); and later packages' spkgconfigure
might be setting MATHJAX_DIR
etc.
In a followup ticket, src/sage/env_config.py
would actually be generated by src/setup.py
, not configure
.
Ticket #29038 provides an alternative implementation that uses an standalone installed Python module sage_conf
, rather than writing into src/sage
Related:
Change History (55)
comment:1 Changed 19 months ago by
 Summary changed from src/setup.py: Create module sage.env_config, which defines variables for use in sage.env to Create module src/sage/env_config.py from src/sage/env_config.py.in, defining variables for use in sage.env
comment:2 Changed 19 months ago by
 Cc fbissey arojas isuruf embray infinity0 ghtimokau added
 Description modified (diff)
comment:3 Changed 19 months ago by
 Branch set to u/mkoeppe/create_module_src_sage_env_config_py_from_src_sage_env_config_py_in__defining_variables_for_use_in_sage_env
comment:4 Changed 19 months ago by
 Cc jdemeyer added
 Commit set to bba08ec0c8008f925643eaf56742115d83253e23
 Status changed from new to needs_review
comment:5 followup: ↓ 6 Changed 19 months ago by
Interesting concept. But your branch won't achieve much since SAGE_LOCAL
is not None
. In fact the problem of the value of SAGE_LOCAL
is solved in most case by the current setting of os.path.abspath(sys.prefix)
. Did you mean to set SAGE_ROOT
?
comment:6 in reply to: ↑ 5 ; followups: ↓ 8 ↓ 14 Changed 19 months ago by
Replying to fbissey:
Interesting concept. But your branch won't achieve much since
SAGE_LOCAL
is notNone
. In fact the problem of the value ofSAGE_LOCAL
is solved in most case by the current setting ofos.path.abspath(sys.prefix)
.
1) With #29013, os.path.abspath(sys.prefix)
is the location of the venv, and not equal to SAGE_LOCAL
.
2) If one starts Sage's Python directly, without going through sageenv
, then the environment variable SAGE_LOCAL
is not set; and in this case it is retrieved from env_config.py
.
comment:7 Changed 19 months ago by
But yes, let's add SAGE_ROOT
to it.
comment:8 in reply to: ↑ 6 ; followup: ↓ 9 Changed 19 months ago by
I misunderstood the way the code works in var
. I thought your value from env_config.py
wouldn't be used.
For your points
1) OK  I get it, that's a problem
2) I am perfectly happy with it being set as
os.path.abspath(sys.prefix)
ifsageenv
is not loaded as it is now. But your alternative is acceptable and of course solves your issue at (1).
I removed sageenv
completely from sageongentoo a number of releases ago and it does work nicely with very little patching (I upstreamed most of it). There is only one place now where I have to replace a call to SAGE_ROOT
at runtime (in sage.misc.copying
). I'd say sage works at 99.99% out of the box without needing sageenv
, in particular you should be able to call it directly from python.
However
1) your venv work may introduce a few disparities
2) being able to override some default from a standardised configuration file instead of patching for your distro values is very appealing.
I don't particularly need SAGE_ROOT
to be set (in fact None
suits me just fine since it doesn't make much sense on a distro), it was just my misconception on what you were doing.
comment:9 in reply to: ↑ 8 ; followup: ↓ 10 Changed 19 months ago by
Replying to fbissey:
I don't particularly need
SAGE_ROOT
to be set (in factNone
suits me just fine since it doesn't make much sense on a distro), it was just my misconception on what you were doing.
Yes, I agree that SAGE_ROOT is not very important, but it's still used for developer convenience functions like those in sage.misc.edit_module
.
comment:10 in reply to: ↑ 9 Changed 19 months ago by
Replying to mkoeppe:
Replying to fbissey:
I don't particularly need
SAGE_ROOT
to be set (in factNone
suits me just fine since it doesn't make much sense on a distro), it was just my misconception on what you were doing.Yes, I agree that SAGE_ROOT is not very important, but it's still used for developer convenience functions like those in
sage.misc.edit_module
.
SAGE_ROOT
is mentioned in the documentation string for edit_devel
but is otherwise absent. The bit in documentation should have been amended at the same time as https://github.com/sagemath/sage/commit/c352b1d5920ce9ffaebada2fe172784b2ba3e3fb#diff141c6e649507c15775d157f417db1e26 I guess.
Almost all of the SAGE_ROOT
stuff left pertains to packaging I think.
comment:11 followup: ↓ 12 Changed 19 months ago by
Note SAGE_SRC
is defined through SAGE_ROOT
.
comment:12 in reply to: ↑ 11 Changed 19 months ago by
Replying to mkoeppe:
Note
SAGE_SRC
is defined throughSAGE_ROOT
.
var('SAGE_SRC', join(SAGE_ROOT, 'src'), SAGE_LIB)
I made sure of that :)  so if SAGE_ROOT
is None
, SAGE_SRC
is set to SAGE_LIB
. I guess you may prefer the SAGE_ROOT
based value. But on a distro it will give me a read only view of the code (which is the best you should hope for if you install stuff with your distro package manager).
comment:13 followup: ↓ 15 Changed 19 months ago by
I don't see why it needs to explicitly be a Python module. I think my proposal in #22652 is simpler, because the same file could be used both for configuring the shell environment, and can be read by the Python code.
To me this just seems like extra cruft.
comment:14 in reply to: ↑ 6 ; followup: ↓ 16 Changed 19 months ago by
Replying to mkoeppe:
Replying to fbissey:
Interesting concept. But your branch won't achieve much since
SAGE_LOCAL
is notNone
. In fact the problem of the value ofSAGE_LOCAL
is solved in most case by the current setting ofos.path.abspath(sys.prefix)
.1) With #29013,
os.path.abspath(sys.prefix)
is the location of the venv, and not equal toSAGE_LOCAL
.
sys.prefix
may not be, but even in a venv sysconfig.get_config_var('prefix')
will always give you the original install prefix for Python, which when using Sage's Python will be SAGE_LOCAL
.
comment:15 in reply to: ↑ 13 Changed 19 months ago by
Replying to embray:
I don't see why it needs to explicitly be a Python module. I think my proposal in #22652 is simpler, because the same file could be used both for configuring the shell environment, and can be read by the Python code.
To me this just seems like extra cruft.
For example, a file like this could be generated at build time by running something like:
$ (source src/bin/sageenvconfig && env  grep '^SAGE_'  sort) SAGE_ARB_LIBRARY=arb SAGE_CONFIGURE_FLINT=withflint=/home/embray/src/sagemath/sage/local SAGE_CONFIGURE_GMP=withgmp=/home/embray/src/sagemath/sage/local SAGE_CONFIGURE_MPC=withmpc=/home/embray/src/sagemath/sage/local SAGE_CONFIGURE_MPFR=withmpfr=/home/embray/src/sagemath/sage/local SAGE_CONFIGURE_NTL=withntl=/home/embray/src/sagemath/sage/local SAGE_CONFIGURE_PARI=withpari=/home/embray/src/sagemath/sage/local SAGE_CRTI_DIR= SAGE_FLINT_PREFIX=/home/embray/src/sagemath/sage/local SAGE_FREETYPE_PREFIX= SAGE_GLPK_PREFIX=/home/embray/src/sagemath/sage/local SAGE_GMP_INCLUDE=/home/embray/src/sagemath/sage/local/include SAGE_GMP_PREFIX=/home/embray/src/sagemath/sage/local SAGE_LOCAL=/home/embray/src/sagemath/sage/local SAGE_MPC_PREFIX=/home/embray/src/sagemath/sage/local SAGE_MPFR_PREFIX=/home/embray/src/sagemath/sage/local SAGE_NTL_PREFIX=/home/embray/src/sagemath/sage/local SAGE_PARI_CFG=/home/embray/src/sagemath/sage/local/lib/pari/pari.cfg SAGE_PARI_PREFIX=/home/embray/src/sagemath/sage/local SAGE_PKG_CONFIG_PATH= SAGE_PYTHON_VERSION=2
It could be output to a .py module that's (optionally) imported by sage.env
, or just a ".env" file (a common extension being used in recent years for a file like this that specifies some environment variables for a project). Distros, if they wish, could write their own version of this file without patching.
comment:16 in reply to: ↑ 14 Changed 19 months ago by
Replying to embray:
Replying to mkoeppe:
Replying to fbissey:
Interesting concept. But your branch won't achieve much since
SAGE_LOCAL
is notNone
. In fact the problem of the value ofSAGE_LOCAL
is solved in most case by the current setting ofos.path.abspath(sys.prefix)
.1) With #29013,
os.path.abspath(sys.prefix)
is the location of the venv, and not equal toSAGE_LOCAL
.
sys.prefix
may not be, but even in a venvsysconfig.get_config_var('prefix')
will always give you the original install prefix for Python, which when using Sage's Python will beSAGE_LOCAL
.
Thanks for this useful info. The purpose of this ticket, however, is to get rid of assumptions like that, to enable use of system python, see #27824.
comment:17 Changed 19 months ago by
Yeah, I see what you're saying. Long term I think it would be great if we could get rid of "SAGE_LOCAL" altogether, though I'm not exactly sure what the alternative looks like either...
comment:18 Changed 19 months ago by
 Cc dimpase added
comment:19 Changed 19 months ago by
Needs review.
comment:20 followup: ↓ 21 Changed 19 months ago by
 Status changed from needs_review to needs_info
Sorry, I'm just not convinced this is useful. At least not yet. It's not needed for setting SAGE_LOCAL. I do agree something like this might be useful for setting other paths related to Sage's dependencies, but I don't think that's necessarily something that should be output by a configure script either, but rather should be loaded from a config file that downstream packagers can modify without patching if need be.
To expand on that a bit, the sagethedistribution configure script is not generally run by packagers. Instead, this should be handled at the level of the sagelib package itself.
comment:21 in reply to: ↑ 20 ; followup: ↓ 22 Changed 19 months ago by
Replying to embray:
I don't think that's necessarily something that should be output by a configure script either, but rather should be loaded from a config file that downstream packagers can modify without patching if need be.
Sagethedistribution generates the file using configure script. Downstream packagers would generate the file by any means that they prefer.
comment:22 in reply to: ↑ 21 ; followups: ↓ 24 ↓ 39 Changed 19 months ago by
Replying to mkoeppe:
Replying to embray:
I don't think that's necessarily something that should be output by a configure script either, but rather should be loaded from a config file that downstream packagers can modify without patching if need be.
Sagethedistribution generates the file using configure script. Downstream packagers would generate the file by any means that they prefer.
If that's the case, I don't think env_config.py.in
should even be directly in the sage package. But I also think this file should not go directly into the sage package at all. It would be better if it were external to the sage package's source tree; but it could still be generated and installed along with the package, but that would be a step handled by setup.py. I also still fail to see the point of making it an actual Python module.
comment:23 followup: ↓ 31 Changed 19 months ago by
I think what I also need to see here is a concrete use case...
comment:24 in reply to: ↑ 22 ; followup: ↓ 25 Changed 19 months ago by
Replying to embray:
Replying to mkoeppe:
Sagethedistribution generates the file using configure script. Downstream packagers would generate the file by any means that they prefer.
If that's the case, I don't think
env_config.py.in
should even be directly in the sage package.
It's the autoconf standard to have templates right next to the file they are templating.
But I also think this file should not go directly into the sage package at all. It would be better if it were external to the sage package's source tree; but it could still be generated and installed along with the package, but that would be a step handled by setup.py.
I actually agree with that, as you can see in the ticket description: In a followup ticket, src/sage/env_config.py would actually be generated by src/setup.py, not configure.
I also still fail to see the point of making it an actual Python module.
It's the easiest way to import values into Python, without having to fight about the "correct" file format to use. toml, anyone?
comment:25 in reply to: ↑ 24 ; followup: ↓ 26 Changed 19 months ago by
Replying to mkoeppe:
Replying to embray:
Replying to mkoeppe:
Sagethedistribution generates the file using configure script. Downstream packagers would generate the file by any means that they prefer.
If that's the case, I don't think
env_config.py.in
should even be directly in the sage package.It's the autoconf standard to have templates right next to the file they are templating.
But I also think this file should not go directly into the sage package at all. It would be better if it were external to the sage package's source tree; but it could still be generated and installed along with the package, but that would be a step handled by setup.py.
I actually agree with that, as you can see in the ticket description: In a followup ticket, src/sage/env_config.py would actually be generated by src/setup.py, not configure.
I think if we started with that, and put the .in file just directly under src/ instead of src/sage I'd be less concerned about this (I still don't see the need, but I wouldn't fight it as much).
I also still fail to see the point of making it an actual Python module.
It's the easiest way to import values into Python, without having to fight about the "correct" file format to use. toml, anyone?
I already suggested a ".env" format which is just one "KEY=VALUE" per line, and can also be sourced by shell scripts.
comment:26 in reply to: ↑ 25 Changed 19 months ago by
Replying to embray:
But I also think this file should not go directly into the sage package at all. It would be better if it were external to the sage package's source tree; but it could still be generated and installed along with the package, but that would be a step handled by setup.py.
I actually agree with that, as you can see in the ticket description: In a followup ticket, src/sage/env_config.py would actually be generated by src/setup.py, not configure.
I think if we started with that, and put the .in file just directly under src/ instead of src/sage I'd be less concerned about this
By making it a Python module in src/sage, it is installed by the standard facilities (setup.py
) that already work now, not in some unspecified future.
comment:27 Changed 19 months ago by
I note here that everything about our installation of nonPython components that reside in src/
is adhoc and we seem to have been unable to make progress on this in years. Relevant tickets:
 #21785  Installation of SAGE_SRC/ext/ in SAGE_LOCAL/share/sage/ext/ should be done by setup.py, not build/make/Makefile
 #22655  Support package_datalike of nonPython resource files in Python packages
 #21569  Install src/bin/* scripts via setup.py (scripts, console_scripts)
That's why I prefer an actionable solution that uses a solid part  the installation of Python modules.
comment:28 Changed 19 months ago by
 Description modified (diff)
 Summary changed from Create module src/sage/env_config.py from src/sage/env_config.py.in, defining variables for use in sage.env to Make sagelib installation directory more flexible by creating a module src/sage/env_config.py from src/sage/env_config.py.in, defining variables for use in sage.env
I've expanded on the explanation of the goals of this ticket.
comment:29 Changed 19 months ago by
 Description modified (diff)
comment:30 Changed 19 months ago by
 Description modified (diff)
comment:31 in reply to: ↑ 23 Changed 19 months ago by
Replying to embray:
I think what I also need to see here is a concrete use case...
Take a look a the new ticket description please.
comment:32 Changed 19 months ago by
 Status changed from needs_info to needs_review
comment:33 Changed 19 months ago by
 Description modified (diff)
comment:34 Changed 19 months ago by
 Commit changed from bba08ec0c8008f925643eaf56742115d83253e23 to 7a435448517b4cae9825943447d2eaf77757a4a6
Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:
7a43544  src/sage/env.py, envconfig.py.in: Add MAXIMA; src/sage/interfaces/maxima.py: Use it

comment:35 Changed 19 months ago by
 Description modified (diff)
comment:36 Changed 19 months ago by
 Description modified (diff)
comment:37 Changed 19 months ago by
 Cc jhpalmieri added
comment:38 Changed 19 months ago by
 Description modified (diff)
comment:39 in reply to: ↑ 22 ; followup: ↓ 42 Changed 19 months ago by
Replying to embray:
Sagethedistribution generates the file using configure script. Downstream packagers would generate the file by any means that they prefer.
If that's the case, I don't think
env_config.py.in
should even be directly in the sage package. But I also think this file should not go directly into the sage package at all. It would be better if it were external to the sage package's source tree; but it could still be generated and installed along with the package
In #29038 I now do exactly that. Thanks for the input.
comment:40 Changed 19 months ago by
 Milestone changed from sage9.1 to sageduplicate/invalid/wontfix
This ticket is superseded by #29038  Python package sage_conf
: Provides optional configuration information for sagelib.
comment:41 Changed 19 months ago by
 Reviewers set to Dima Pasechnik, Erik Bray
 Status changed from needs_review to positive_review
comment:42 in reply to: ↑ 39 ; followup: ↓ 44 Changed 19 months ago by
 Status changed from positive_review to needs_info
Replying to mkoeppe:
Replying to embray:
Sagethedistribution generates the file using configure script. Downstream packagers would generate the file by any means that they prefer.
If that's the case, I don't think
env_config.py.in
should even be directly in the sage package. But I also think this file should not go directly into the sage package at all. It would be better if it were external to the sage package's source tree; but it could still be generated and installed along with the packageIn #29038 I now do exactly that. Thanks for the input.
I'm sorry, what you did in that ticket is not what I meant at all, and that's my fault for not being clearer and more explicit. What I had in mind here was this:
 I was unclear when I wrote "external to the sage package's source tree". What I meant was (relative to the git repository), still in
src/
, but not insrc/sage
.
 These settings (whether written by sagethedistribution's configure script, or by hand by a packager) would be written by
src/setup.py
into a file that *is* installed in thesage
package.
An analogy I would use is numpy.__config__
. If you look at it, and Numpy's setup.py, you can see that it's generated and installed inside the numpy package. This is close to what you are trying to do, but just a different approach to how the file is installed.
I'm still 1 on it being a .py module, but if you feel strongly about that I'd take it as long as we can do the rest more like Numpy does.
comment:43 Changed 19 months ago by
numpy's configuration/setup is IMHO a good example of how NOT to do such things.
comment:44 in reply to: ↑ 42 ; followup: ↓ 48 Changed 19 months ago by
Replying to embray:
I'd take it as long as we can do the rest more like Numpy does.
Numpy's solution, expecting a configuration file in its tobeinstalled sources, is outdated (and, by the way, untested by upstream) because it is incompatible with pipinstalling from a source other than a local directory.
Let's continue the discussion in #29038.
comment:45 Changed 19 months ago by
 Status changed from needs_info to needs_review
This ticket can now be closed because superseded by #29038.
comment:46 Changed 19 months ago by
 Status changed from needs_review to positive_review
comment:47 Changed 18 months ago by
 Resolution set to wontfix
 Status changed from positive_review to closed
comment:48 in reply to: ↑ 44 Changed 18 months ago by
Replying to mkoeppe:
Replying to embray:
I'd take it as long as we can do the rest more like Numpy does.
Numpy's solution, expecting a configuration file in its tobeinstalled sources, is outdated (and, by the way, untested by upstream) because it is incompatible with pipinstalling from a source other than a local directory.
Let's continue the discussion in #29038.
I dont think so; you could also pass the configuration by other means but it's just an example. I don't see how #29038 makes this any better. Now you have to have a whole external Python module to do the same thing.
comment:49 Changed 18 months ago by
wrapping up configuration into a Python package is more Pythonic than "other means". "A whole external Python" module is way cleaner than a bunch of text files (maybe sourceable from shell, maybe not) for a Python library.
comment:50 followups: ↓ 51 ↓ 53 Changed 18 months ago by
I need to do a write up about this. I guess I exchanged a bigger patch for a smaller one and an extra file. The issue with your python module is that it is not a proper package. I don't have a tarball for the source apart from sage's own source and it is not versioned. So as a distro packager I am looking at this as extra work if I want to package it as a separate python module because I have to do the packaging and versioning myself.
So right now I have a patch to look for sage.sage_conf in env.py, and I am putting sage_conf.py next to env.py. There may be something wrong with putting sage_cong.py.in in the source themselves. But replacing it by an half assed package is hardly ideal.
comment:51 in reply to: ↑ 50 Changed 18 months ago by
Replying to fbissey:
I need to do a write up about this. I guess I exchanged a bigger patch for a smaller one and an extra file. The issue with your python module is that it is not a proper package. I don't have a tarball for the source apart from sage's own source and it is not versioned. So as a distro packager I am looking at this as extra work if I want to package it as a separate python module because I have to do the packaging and versioning myself.
We can make ./bootstrap to generate a tarball of it in upstream/ just as it's done for configure package.
Will it help?
comment:52 Changed 18 months ago by
It'd possibly be an improvement if it is properly versioned. But it would still need to be preprocessed before it being usable. You are running away from the complexity by heaping a bit more :)
I can adapt with most of the stuff that you throw at me. I have been doing that for about 12 years now. But I am fairly much in agreement with Erik that a different design should have been chosen altogether. In fact it's been years that I have been expecting sage to get a setup.cfg  at the very least for optional packages (the new design for coinor/gurobi/cplex rocks by the way).
comment:53 in reply to: ↑ 50 Changed 18 months ago by
Replying to fbissey:
I need to do a write up about this. I guess I exchanged a bigger patch for a smaller one and an extra file. The issue with your python module is that it is not a proper package. I don't have a tarball for the source apart from sage's own source and it is not versioned. So as a distro packager I am looking at this as extra work if I want to package it as a separate python module because I have to do the packaging and versioning myself.
So right now I have a patch to look for sage.sage_conf in env.py, and I am putting sage_conf.py next to env.py. There may be something wrong with putting sage_cong.py.in in the source themselves. But replacing it by an half assed package is hardly ideal.
Are you commenting on the right ticket? #29038 was merged, not this one.
comment:54 Changed 18 months ago by
You are right I should have commented on the other ticket. I just took the conversation on this ticket when I found it first in my inbox this morning. That being said I have been thinking of doing a comment for a week so I just took the opportunity before postponing it and never writing it. Of course the order I read things in my inbox in the morning is also a big influence in this case. But if I had waited to read all my inbox before thinking "I should put my comment there" I may not have written it at all :(
comment:55 Changed 18 months ago by
I recommend to read #21707. It gives the highlevel overview.
New commits:
Create module src/sage/env_config.py from src/sage/env_config.py.in, defining SAGE_LOCAL