On 9 December 2015 at 01:54, Tony Kelman <t...@kelman.net> wrote: > The PPA is maintained by staticfloat, aka Elliot Saba. He's had very > little time for Julia lately and no one has stepped up to take over the PPA > maintenance from him. >
Thanks for letting me know. I'll circulate that and see if anyone locally wants to step up. You never know. > > You just extract the Linux tarballs, then run bin/julia. There's nothing > to install. If you want to have julia on your path, you can add it in your > bashrc. > Oh, that works for me now. Last time I tried it (quite some time ago now) it didn't. I figured the Ubuntu ppa's were there for a reason at the time, so didn't think much more of it. Bill. > > > On Tuesday, December 8, 2015 at 3:33:53 PM UTC-8, Bill Hart wrote: >> >> By the way, I haven't used the generic Linux binaries because I couldn't >> figure out how to install them. There's no Makefile and no instructions. >> The last time I tried they didn't work when just placed in my home >> directory. They seem to need installation somewhere. >> >> I'm pretty sure our Ubuntu users are going to prefer the ppa magic anyway. >> >> On 9 December 2015 at 00:24, Bill Hart <goodwi...@googlemail.com> wrote: >> >>> I've searched my machine and really haven't found libjulia.so, except >>> the copy I mentioned, which has no symbols. >>> >>> The PPA's seemed to be very up-to-date with v0.4.1 being available the >>> day it was released. They also work just fine. I think they are just >>> missing something. >>> >>> Where would I even report that issue? Is it a Julia developer who >>> maintains the staticfloat ppa's? >>> >>> Bill. >>> >>> On 8 December 2015 at 23:46, Tony Kelman <to...@kelman.net> wrote: >>> >>>> That sounds like a serious bug in the PPA packaging, or it's just >>>> putting libjulia somewhere you haven't found it. The PPA is not very >>>> actively maintained at the moment, the generic tarball binaries are the >>>> main binary install recommendation on Linux right now. >>> >>> >>> >>
