"Bill Page" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | Gaby, | | On September 1, 2006 10:23 AM you wrote: | > ... | > Bill Page wrote: | > | Anyway, I do not see why the Axiom build should be designed to | > | require latex. The only really essential tool here is noweb. | > | > We also latex the document; that is part of the basic requirements -- | > we had a discussion on that issue last week or so with Tim. | | I do not recall that discussion.
I do not have enough patience to wait the long time needed to lookup mails from the axiom-developer archive, it was mostly a ping-pong between Tim and me on the list. I do believe that there out to be a mode of compiling Axiom without having to latex the pamphlet files, because there are situations where those latexing are pure plain waste of valuable time. [...] | > If there are problems somewhere, I'm very willing to fix them, but | > I decline to fix the build environments. | > | | I think "fix" is too strong a word for the SF compile farm since | these machines serve many different purposes. well, when I asked for machines where I could test Axiom on, you kindly reminded me that SF offers compile farm machines. I find the idea great! Then I proceeded to registered myself and test Axiom. Only to find that Axiom build requirements are met only on linux-based platforms. If we restrict ourselves sufficiently enough we should not have any problem. We could even build a wonderful black-hole ghetto for Axiom. Now, if I must spend valuable time to install tools on each of those systems and watchout for my user configuration files to pick the right binaries and whatnot, then I rather spend it on my research and teaching. Axiom requirements are excellent in the abstract. Its approach to the real software world makes it a good candidate for the contest of most frustrating open source software to contribute to. -- Gaby _______________________________________________ Axiom-developer mailing list Axiom-developer@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/axiom-developer