Bill Hart wrote: > In retrospect, I think your patch is the right way to go, and I'd have > no issue with using a later gcc (4.3.1 or later) on T2. The most > important thing which needs to be done is to fix the ATLAS issue, then > someone can begin to test some of these patches you have been coming > up with. > > An alternative might just be to not bother testing the patch as part > of the review process, on t2, but only test that it doesn't break the > build on some other (non-t2) machine. I mean, it is not like this > patch is going to stop sage building on t2, as it doesn't build > anyway.
Bill, I updated the SPKG.txt so it's less confusing and makes it clear that no extra checks are enabled by the updated .spkg, so it should take no longer to build. I also added a bit more info at http://sagetrac.org/sage_trac/ticket/6453 which may more or less confusing - I don't know which!! I also changed the comment (not code) in spkg-install as what I previously written, could have been done better. If you want to test it quickly, go to /tmp/kirkby/sage-4.1 and test. All files now have write permission to anyone. $ chmod -R 777 kirkby > I'm prepared to sign off on the fact that the premise behind the patch > is fine. If someone else will glance at the actual patch code and test > it against an already working sage on a non-t2 machine, perhaps people > will allow the patch to pass review without further testing. > > Bill. It's not the easiest patch to review I must admit, but it is all surrounded by if [ `uname` = "SunOS" ]; then lots of things here .... fi So it will not break anything elsewhere. dave --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
