You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
It makes sense to install a new version of a GAP package of which an older version is already loaded in the current GAP session.
If one installs the package with PackageManager's InstallPackage via a URL then PackageManager notices that the package documentation needs to be processed, and tries to build the package documentation.
Now the following happens in the case of the recog package.
The file makedoc.g reads the file regen_doc.g, and this file contains a check whether a perhaps already loaded version of recog has the same installation path as the version that is currently going to get installed; if not then an error is thrown.
This means that it is not possible to load one version of recog (which happens when GAP starts) and then to install a newer version of recog with InstallPackage via a URL.
I think that packages should not throw an error in the above situation, and that we should perhaps document this.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
It makes sense to install a new version of a GAP package of which an older version is already loaded in the current GAP session.
If one installs the package with PackageManager's
InstallPackage
via a URL then PackageManager notices that the package documentation needs to be processed, and tries to build the package documentation.Now the following happens in the case of the
recog
package.The file
makedoc.g
reads the fileregen_doc.g
, and this file contains a check whether a perhaps already loaded version ofrecog
has the same installation path as the version that is currently going to get installed; if not then an error is thrown.This means that it is not possible to load one version of
recog
(which happens when GAP starts) and then to install a newer version ofrecog
withInstallPackage
via a URL.I think that packages should not throw an error in the above situation, and that we should perhaps document this.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: