Hi, a few years ago, i used to build 16 binaries in a row at each release for various Debian and Ubuntu versions and architectures. Then, i stopped because Jan Groenwald dedicated some machines at AIMS to build binaries. If necessary, i could try to setup such a builder for a bunch of binaries for more distros.
The binaries worked pretty well on foreign machines, so what changed since this period ? Also, there used to be a SAGE_FAT_BINARY variable that was supposed to ensure that the binary does not depend on the libraries provided by the distro. Is it less efficient today ? Ciao, Thierry On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 05:15:51AM -0700, kcrisman wrote: > If we're moving away from providing binaries, then this is a good way to > go, well organized. Below a few minor notes about the sagemath-tobias > link, I hope they are helpful. My apologies in advance for any bike > shedding, though I tried to be pretty concrete. > > 1. Is it possible to have a short bullet list for the three/four options > * Linux > * Mac > * Windoze > * Cloud > that link to those, immediately below "Where would you like to run > SageMath?"? I'm pretty sure Sphinx makes that possible. Even a little bit > of needed scrolling leads to people just not caring. > > 2. I'd also recommend Linux be last - this page is designed for people who > are not comfortable installing source software, I guess. (Similarly, no > development as first option?) > > e. Alternately, one could have the first decision point be "develop or not" > - that would be my preference, but obviously would be an annoying bit of > work with perhaps not that much marginal gain. Still, that seems to be the > great divide in Sage, not so much platform, and would allow for people who > want to just use Sage in the cloud to see that option very early. It's not > like people on (say) Windows don't also use the cloud, so the four-way > partition could be somewhat misleading to less careful readers (which many > internet users are when in a hurry) in practice, though of course not in > principle. > > 3. Do the binaries/packaging allow for all optional packages and/or using > Cython/Fortran? I recall this coming up not only on this list, but also > sometimes when I've tried to show people Cython usage as a "great feature" > of Sage that doesn't work in some environments. If the answer to any of > these is not, you might need another part of the decision tree, or at least > a link to something about optional packages in each "no development" part. > > 4. A link to some Windows doc on what WSL is would probably be pretty > helpful, since presumably a lot of Windows users who like doing math have > never heard of it. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "sage-devel" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/9d1a5022-ad08-4fd7-8ec4-1132ab4257b9n%40googlegroups.com. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/20220426174644.GA30992%40metelu.net.
