Reporting (a little late) a successful build of 2.7 followed by a good upgrade to 2.7.2.1 on Feisty Fawn Core2Duo 1GB.
I noticed my last name was misspelled in the credits... It is D. Raymer instead of 'Ramier'. -Dorian On 7/20/07, William Stein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On 7/20/07, Pablo De Napoli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Concerning (2) > > > > I think that if a gfortran it is already installed in the system, it > > would be reasonable to use rather than downloading a binary. > > Issues: > (1) If it's gfortran 3.x then it will fail miserably at building > certain components of SAGE. > (2) The current gfortran.spkg already does attempt to autodetect > gfortran and if it is there it > doesn't install a binary. It is too restrictive, as once > pointed out before. > > > (gfortran > > is in fact, a standard part of gcc, if gcc from the host system is > > used for compiling the parts of sage writen in C, why not doing the > > same with Fortran code? > > I don't understand this comment. Many many systems have gcc/g++ > installed but not gfortran. For example, OS X's Xcode doesn't include > any Fortran, and there are at least 3 different competing gfortran > binaries > for OS X out there. Similarly with Linux, there are various builds > of gfortran, and often systems don't have it installed at all (about > half my test linux systems). Also, e.g., if you install the standard > Fedora Core 7 (32-bit) gfortran it will fail to compile SAGE, whereas > the one we package works. There is also another GNU fortran > called g95, which competes with gfortran (even though both are > GNU projects). For whatever reason, the fortran compiler situation > is a total nightmare in comparison to C/C++. > > > I think that in order to increce the aceptance of Sage, it would be > > important that Sage be included in all Linux distributions, especially > > it would be nice to have a Debian/Ubuntu package (and a Gentoo > > ebuild). But in order to make it easier, it would be nice if Sage > > could be build using the tools already available in the host system. > > I agree. Please help. > > > Perhaps using the binary for gfortran could be make it optional as a > > last resource if everything else fails. > > Determining that "everything else fails" doesn't make sense, because > you basically wouldn't know that happened until it is too late. > > It's really very difficult to appreciate the problem and difficulty with > packaging scipy to build easily on a wide range of platforms if you > haven't spent significant time working on it, so I don't have much more > to say on this point, except that Josh and I will investigate some other > solutions, possibly including switching from gfortran to g95 binaries > (since g95 has vastly vastly better support for pre-built binaries that > gfortran). > > -- William > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URLs: http://sage.scipy.org/sage/ and http://modular.math.washington.edu/sage/ -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
