Stephen Hartke wrote: > I've added my Python binding for nauty into Jason Grout's optional nauty > spkg. (Jason: I hope that's okay. Since the extension needs to include > nauty and link against it, it seems simplest to include it in one > package.) It can be downloaded at > http://www.math.unl.edu/~shartke2/files/nauty-24b7.spkg > and sample usage files that call nauty for a Sage graph can be found here: > http://www.math.unl.edu/~shartke2/files/sagenauty.tar.bz2
I think it's a great idea to include a more natural interface to nauty in the spkg. > > Both of these works are still preliminary, and I have questions about > the best way to implement things. Specifically, I have a question about > linking the extension: > > The Python extension is linked against nauty object files, and gcc > complains these should be compiled with the flag "-fPIC" to make > relocatable code. nauty does not have this flag normally, so I modified > the makefile to add this flag using sed. Is the right way to handle > this problem? Is it okay for the executables that Jason is installing > in bin to be compiled with -fPIC, or should two separate compilings be done? > Others (mabshoff?) can comment on what to do about -fPIC. However, my guess is that using sed at spkg install time is probably not a good idea, or at least not in line with official practices. It seems that the official way to change the makefile is to store the new makefile in the patches directory and copy it over to the src directory at spkg install time. Thanks for your work on this! Jason --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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://www.sagemath.org -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
