On 2022-08-09T12:47:27+0200, Andreas Enge wrote:
> thanks for the update! I just pushed an update of maxima (and wxmaxima), but
> without your addition of ecl. Is there a good reason for this? In any case,
> this should be done in a separate commit, since it is not required for the
> update. For the record, I also tried to compile with gcl, but this still
> failed.
SageMath requires the FASL library? (I only know scheme) `maxima.fas'.
But it is only built when using ecl (See upstream here [0]). I don't
know if we need both sbcl and ecl. Arch uses both and puts the
lib/.../binary-* directories in separate packages[1], so maybe we could
use different outputs? Anyway, I have attached an rebased commit that
adds ecl.

> > > Concerning sagemath itself, below is my very old version of an attempt at
> > > packaging the library. Some things look reassuringly similar, my handling
> > > of the number of cores is less nice, but I do delete the bundled packages.
> > The `upstream' directory only seems to exist in the published tarball.
> > So this should be no problem if we build from git.
> 
> Ah, interesting. Which one should we do? I personally tend to prefer tarballs
> (as the official distribution mechanism of the project). Recently there has
> been a preference in the Guix project for git repositories when autotools
> are involved, as they make it possible to recreate the configure scripts
> from their source. But since this is not the case here, the argument does
> not hold.
The sage tarball is 1.35 GiB while the repository is only about 440 MiB.
That seems quite convincing on its own.

[0]:
https://sourceforge.net/p/maxima/patches/80/
[1]:
https://github.com/archlinux/svntogit-packages/blob/packages/maxima/trunk/PKGBUILD