gap-packages/agt

Algebraic graph theory: A GAP package

agt's Issues

Website and releases

This explains how to do it:

• https://github.com/gap-system/ReleaseTools
• https://github.com/gap-system/GitHubPagesForGAP

Loading with OnlyNeeded option

I looked at the issue mentioned in gap-system/gap-distribution#104.

What happens is an interaction between Grape and Digraphs, caused by the fact that when we call LoadPackage("agt" : OnlyNeeded), then OnlyNeeded becomes a global option. Now agt dependencies have

NeededOtherPackages := [["GAPDoc", "1.5"],["grape","4.8"],["design","1.6"],["Digraphs","0.12.2"]],

and each of those packages will be loaded with the same OnlyNeeded option (I suppose). But Digraphs has this:

BindGlobal("DIGRAPHS_IsGrapeLoaded",
           IsPackageMarkedForLoading("grape", "4.8.1"));

if not DIGRAPHS_IsGrapeLoaded then
  IsGraph := ReturnFalse;
  Vertices := IdFunc;
  Adjacency := IdFunc;
fi;

and apparently DIGRAPHS_IsGrapeLoaded=false and IsGraph and Vertices are then defined as above. Next, GAP tries to load GRAPE as needed package and clearly this causes an error.

Any ideas how to fix this @fingolfin @james-d-mitchell ? One is to withdraw tests with OnlyNeeded option (or let them fail without failing the test) - but they are useful to catch undocumented dependencies. Another is to review relations between GRAPE and Digraphs - the change to allow Digraphs to load without GRAPE has been made 5 years ago, do we still need it?

Update URLs

This package still has URLs like https://travis-ci.org/rhysje00/agt in various places. I recommend to git grep rhysje00 through the repository to find all affected places

Redistributing with GAP

After #2, add a line to https://github.com/gap-system/gap-distribution/blob/master/DistributionUpdate/PackageUpdate/currentPackageInfoURLList with the URL of PackageInfo.g and email to GAP Support with the suggestion to deposit this package.

Mismatch between .gitignore and repository

Your .gitignore among other things lists these files:

/srglib/Validated.g
/srglib/NotInvalidated.g
/srglib/Enumerated.g
/srglib/BrouwerParametersold.g
/srglib/Available.g
/srglib/SpenceFileToGAP.m

Yet these files are actually in the repository. That makes no sense: either those files should be removed from the repository; or else these lines be removed from .gitignore.

BTW, if you simply don't want these files to be in releases, you can edit the .release script to delete them during the release process (assuming you are using ReleaseTools to make releases)

Testing with GAP development version

Please add this package to

https://github.com/gap-infra/gap-docker-pkg-tests-master-devel/blob/master/.travis.yml

and

https://github.com/gap-infra/gap-docker-pkg-tests-stable-4.11-devel/blob/master/.travis.yml

• this will allow us to test how your package works under GAP's master and stable-4.11 branches

test with GAP 4.X

Look e.g. at https://github.com/gap-packages/example/blob/master/.travis.yml

AGT 0.3 tarball contains broken symlink

Specifically:

$ ls -al doc/mathjax
lrwxr-xr-x 1 mhorn staff 29 Dec 14 16:54 doc/mathjax -> /usr/share/javascript/mathjax

Clarify licensing terms

The README just refers to "the terms of the GNU General Public License" but does not specify which version. It also points to the LICENSE file, which has GPL 3, but it is left unclear whether now GPL 3 is indeed the license, or "GPL 3 or later", or something else. The README.md should make that clear.

In general, I would recommend to use the "... or later" variant as it can help simplify things in the future. Here is the "standard" text for that:

This program is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify
it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or
(at your option) any later version.

Also, if this code is entirely written by you, please consider whether "GPL 2 or later" would also be acceptable for you, as that would match the licensing terms of GAP itself and thus make life of downstream packagers easier. That said, it is of course your choice.

Finally, I would appreciate if you were to add a suitable License field to PackageInfo.g. See e.g. here https://github.com/gap-packages/io/blob/master/PackageInfo.g (any SPDX license ID is acceptable).