On Apr 24, 3:30 pm, Tim Abbott <tabb...@mit.edu> wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Apr 2009, mabshoff wrote:
Hi Tim,
> > Is that correct or are the GNUisms Victor's fault?
>
> I would assume that is correct. I didn't actually write any of the code
> for NTL 5.5; Victor did all the work there. That said, I thought his
> intention was to not require GNU make as he mentioned it as one of his
> goals when discussing with me; I guess that was only important when
> SHARED=off.
>
> Looking at the code there just seems to be one GNUism in the makefile:
> $(OBJ:.o=.lo). This is probably removable with a bit of work.
Well, don't worry about it too much. As long as freetype deliberately
uses gmake features (and refuses to remove them) Sage cannot be build
with a pure BSD-ish make anyway. I just want upstream to be aware of
the problem and not add to the problem.
> One could fix the LIBTOOL=glibtool problem by adding a check for OS X to
> NTL's wizard.
Yeah, I am not sure what Victor is talking about. If you install XCode
you will have libtool on OSX. It might be that he is using MacPorts or
Fink where things are different.
> > Ok. I am specifically thinking of your patch to zn_poly as well as
> > polybori where your patch broke the linking on OSX 10.4 for example.
>
> Work on both of those was early. But I didn't write the patch for
> polybori that was merged; that was done by the upstream developers using
> some scons options.
Sure, but if you wouldn't have complained the code would have never
been added ;)
Seriously: library versioning matters a lot of distribution packaging,
but it seriously annoys me and creates problems, i.e. there is a whole
set of of FreeBSD fixes in trac now that I will hopefully all merge in
3.4.2.rc0 today that are caused by libtool & friends. None of this is
your fault, but there are just two different forces at play here and
we need to find an equilibrium.
> > Ok, if you contact upstream about anything Sage related please CC me
> > and William in the future. If the person responds only to you which
> > happens frequently with people being unaware there is a "reply-all"
> > please either forward the email to me and William or CC me on the
> > reply again.
>
> Sure, I can do that. Just to be super clear, you want me to do this for
> all such contact, not just cddlib, right?
Yes, I would like to be CCed on anything offlist to upstream code in
Sage related to Debian packaging. Feel free to use your own judgment,
i.e. if you feel uncomfortable for any reason just drop me from the
CC. In some cases don't expect a reply, but you can assume I will read
every email.
> > There is a new upstream-ish release of IML whcih should have this
> > code.
>
> Yes, I was able to get iml upstream to do a release with the relevant
> code; it was just a problem for me at the time.
Ok, last time we sat down with Arne there was a problem with OSX, but
I will look into this. It is a non-Debian issue, so if we cannot get
Arne to do a release we will just conditionally patch it out in the
spkg.
> > Yes, you just ended up with the patches that fell through the
> > cracks :)
>
> > My time is limited and if I have written a couple email to upstream
> > and I never got any feedback at all I am just dropping the issue since
> > I have plenty of other things to do.
>
> Right, I should expect to have a sampling bias problem where I only notice
> when the patches don't end up upstream promptly :)
Indeed :)
> -Tim Abbott
Cheers,
Michael
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
sage-devel-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel
URLs: http://www.sagemath.org
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
