Re: [sage-release] Re: Why is gcc built?

Looks fine to me... On 2017-02-22 18:31, Simon King wrote: configure:5266: checking for gfortran configure:5282: found /usr/bin/gfortran configure:5293: result: gfortran configure:5319: checking for Fortran compiler version configure:5328: gfortran --version >&5 GNU Fortran (Ubuntu

[sage-release] Re: Why is gcc built?

Hi Dima, On 2017-02-22, Dima Pasechnik wrote: > Looks like gcc spkg will not be built, just as you want. OK, then all is good. Best regards, Simon -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-release" group. To unsubscribe from this

[sage-release] Re: Why is gcc built?

I think there is nothing wrong there, it is typical configure output, checking for various options that are not crucial. Looks like gcc spkg will not be built, just as you want. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-release" group. To unsubscribe

[sage-release] Re: Why is gcc built?

After installing gfortran (not gfortan5 or gfortran5, which doesn't seem to exist), I still see various errors in config.log concerning fortran (see attachment) --- I don't know if Sage would still build its own gcc, but perhaps you can see from the new config.log what would happen. Cheers,

[sage-release] Re: Why is gcc built?

Hi John, On 2017-02-22, John Cremona wrote: > It would be helpful for anyone in Simon's position if, after > configure, there was a message saying something like "your build will > be faster if you install the following system-wide: gfortran, ... " > but I'm sure it will

[sage-release] Re: Why is gcc built?

PS: On 2017-02-22, Simon King wrote: > Aha. Although I did "apt-get install gcc-fortran", gfortran is not there. And the reason is that apparently I didn't read the development manual with enough care. It advises to install gfortran (resp gcc-gfortran on redhat), and

Re: [sage-release] Re: Why is gcc built?

On 22 February 2017 at 16:08, Simon King wrote: > > > Am Mittwoch, 22. Februar 2017 17:04:48 UTC+1 schrieb Jeroen Demeyer: >> >> On 2017-02-22 16:50, Simon King wrote: >> > So, it seems that the problem lies in Fortran compiler, right? But I did >> > do >> >sudo

Re: [sage-release] Re: Why is gcc built?

Am Mittwoch, 22. Februar 2017 17:04:21 UTC+1 schrieb Jeroen Demeyer: > > On 2017-02-22 16:50, Simon King wrote: > > In other words, I still don't see why gcc should be rebuilt (unless the > > developer's manual needs update). > > Can you post the config.log file? > > Voilà! Cheers, Simon

Re: [sage-release] Re: Why is gcc built?

On 2017-02-22 16:50, Simon King wrote: In other words, I still don't see why gcc should be rebuilt (unless the developer's manual needs update). Can you post the config.log file? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-release" group. To unsubscribe

Re: [sage-release] Re: Why is gcc built?

On 2017-02-22 16:50, Simon King wrote: So, it seems that the problem lies in Fortran compiler, right? But I did do sudo apt-get install gcc-fortran following the advice of the manual. To verify, run gfortran --version -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google

Re: [sage-release] Re: Why is gcc built?

On 2017-02-22 14:50, Simon King wrote: Hi Jeroen, On 2017-02-22, Jeroen Demeyer wrote: The reason that I asked you to run ./configure is just to answer the *why* question. Since I am not patient enough to wait till the build has finished: Shouldn't the reason be

Re: [sage-release] Sage 7.6.beta4 released

just in case, these tests work for me, so it could be that sage4 has some weirdness built-in... On Wednesday, February 22, 2017 at 8:46:38 AM UTC, Jeroen Demeyer wrote: > > I just noticed that this doctest was actually introduced in 7.6.beta4 in > #22174, so bisecting will not help... > --

Re: [sage-release] Sage 7.6.beta4 released

Please followup at https://github.com/pynac/pynac/issues/231 On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 9:46 AM Jeroen Demeyer wrote: > I just noticed that this doctest was actually introduced in 7.6.beta4 in > #22174, so bisecting will not help... > > -- > You received this message