Opened 3 years ago
Closed 11 months ago
#29919 closed enhancement (fixed)
Restore "huge" package type
Reported by: | mkoeppe | Owned by: | |
---|---|---|---|
Priority: | major | Milestone: | sage-9.6 |
Component: | build | Keywords: | |
Cc: | jhpalmieri, dimpase, mjo, slabbe, etn40ff, gh-tobiasdiez | Merged in: | |
Authors: | Matthias Koeppe | Reviewers: | John Palmieri |
Report Upstream: | N/A | Work issues: | |
Branch: | 15cc20c (Commits, GitHub, GitLab) | Commit: | 15cc20c4a35db2b2b3a0bb52e444bb6d67268c32 |
Dependencies: | Stopgaps: |
Description (last modified by )
(from #29901)
... for packages like database_stein_watkins
and polytopes_db_4d
Parts of sage_bootstrap
know about this package type, but other scripts don't.
Our GH Actions scripts filter out these packages by name. This can be refactored.
With the present ticket, we can now say sage --package list :optional: :experimental: --no-file huge
to filter out the huge packages.
Huge packages are now marked by the presence of the file huge
; so this is actually orthogonal to the package type.
We also add files named has_nonfree_dependencies
to some other packages so that they can be filtered out by the same mechanism.
Change History (25)
comment:1 Changed 3 years ago by
Cc: | mjo added |
---|
comment:2 Changed 2 years ago by
Milestone: | sage-9.2 → sage-9.3 |
---|
comment:3 Changed 2 years ago by
Cc: | slabbe added |
---|---|
Description: | modified (diff) |
comment:4 Changed 2 years ago by
Cc: | etn40ff added |
---|
comment:5 Changed 2 years ago by
Milestone: | sage-9.3 → sage-9.4 |
---|
comment:6 Changed 19 months ago by
Milestone: | sage-9.4 → sage-9.5 |
---|
comment:7 Changed 14 months ago by
Milestone: | sage-9.5 → sage-9.6 |
---|
comment:8 Changed 12 months ago by
Cc: | gh-tobiasdiez added |
---|---|
Description: | modified (diff) |
comment:9 Changed 12 months ago by
Authors: | → Matthias Koeppe |
---|---|
Description: | modified (diff) |
Status: | new → needs_review |
comment:10 Changed 12 months ago by
Branch: | → u/mkoeppe/restore__huge__package_type |
---|
comment:11 Changed 12 months ago by
Commit: | → ce1924c14776c96eb7f4ab3bbaeb624480411fb6 |
---|---|
Dependencies: | #29901, #20104 |
comment:12 Changed 12 months ago by
Description: | modified (diff) |
---|
comment:13 Changed 12 months ago by
Commit: | ce1924c14776c96eb7f4ab3bbaeb624480411fb6 → 554ad59f12f3970722315193cbfc537db2b634f0 |
---|
Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:
554ad59 | build/pkgs/{scipoptsuite,sage_numerical_backends_cplex,sage_numerical_backends_gurobi}/has_nonfree_dependencies: New
|
comment:14 Changed 11 months ago by
Can you document both huge
and has_nonfree_dependencies
in the developer's guide?
comment:16 Changed 11 months ago by
I think we should have a cleaner way to add "tags" to packages, but in lieu of general solution this gets the job done.
The nonfree-dependencies thing is a bit of a legal mess. Users who install such a package lose the right to distribute their copy of sage. Entities such as universities may not want to wade into that sort of grey area. Anyway, that's orthogonal to this ticket.
comment:17 Changed 11 months ago by
Commit: | 554ad59f12f3970722315193cbfc537db2b634f0 → b401649578c412275b9e79fbac235c4421837688 |
---|
Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:
b401649 | src/doc/en/developer/packaging.rst: Explain package tags has_nonfree_dependencies, huge
|
comment:18 Changed 11 months ago by
Commit: | b401649578c412275b9e79fbac235c4421837688 → bf0c9238cea8a7b90bcb1a7a39cfcd2a9dd21ef5 |
---|
Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:
bf0c923 | src/doc/en/developer/packaging.rst: Add section title
|
comment:19 Changed 11 months ago by
Commit: | bf0c9238cea8a7b90bcb1a7a39cfcd2a9dd21ef5 → 15cc20c4a35db2b2b3a0bb52e444bb6d67268c32 |
---|
Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:
15cc20c | src/doc/en/developer/packaging.rst: Typo
|
comment:20 Changed 11 months ago by
Would
if any(not pkg.has_file(filename) for filename in filenames):
be more efficient than the current
if not all(pkg.has_file(filename) for filename in filenames):
and similarly a few lines later with not any(...)
? Or does Python do this sort of optimization automatically?
comment:22 Changed 11 months ago by
There's no difference in efficiency - both any
and all
shortcircuit.
And I think there is no difference in clarity
comment:23 Changed 11 months ago by
Reviewers: | → John Palmieri |
---|---|
Status: | needs_review → positive_review |
I got confused and thought that the two might short-circuit at different points, but they will short-circuit at exactly the same point, so it makes no difference.
This is not your fault and should not be fixed on this ticket, but I wish that the code in expand_class.py
were documented. Anyway, let's move forward with this.
comment:25 Changed 11 months ago by
Branch: | u/mkoeppe/restore__huge__package_type → 15cc20c4a35db2b2b3a0bb52e444bb6d67268c32 |
---|---|
Resolution: | → fixed |
Status: | positive_review → closed |
Setting new milestone based on a cursory review of ticket status, priority, and last modification date.