Actually, this is really silly. The must be a multitude of packages for Solaris which are distributed with binaries and which need these libraries. How do they deal with this issue?
Is there a package installation system like apt-get or yum or rpm on Solaris? They must surely deal with this issue somehow? Bill. On 22 Feb, 21:01, Bill Hart <goodwillh...@googlemail.com> wrote: > -1 from me to including these libraries. > > Q1. Are there any other well-known packages which do this? If not, it > is not a standard thing to do, probably for good reason. > > Cython uses the C compiler (if I understand correctly). I think this > kills the idea dead. > > Q2. Would building Sage with the Sun CC compiler remove the need to > have standard GNU libraries accessible somewhere? If so, how hard > would it be to have Sage build with the Sun CC? > > Bill. > > On 22 Feb, 20:44, "Georg S. Weber" <georgswe...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > > > > On 22 Feb., 12:27, "Dr. David Kirkby" <david.kir...@onetel.net> wrote: > > > > This came up on the thread "mercurial on t2" but I thought I'd start a new > > > thread on it. > > > > I'd propose that we include in any binary distribution gcc's C, C++ and > > > Fortran > > > shared libraries. They would be placed in $SAGE_LOCAL/lib. Then we can > > > ensure > > > that people will run Sage with what libraries Sage was built with, rather > > > than > > > what versions they may or may not have lying around. > > > > The amount of bloat this would add to the binary would be very small. For > > > Solaris, the compressed sizes of the files are: > > > > -rwxr-xr-x 1 drkirkby staff 1.5M Feb 22 10:10 > > > libstdc++.so.6.0.10.gz > > > -rwxr-xr-x 1 drkirkby staff 717K Feb 22 10:10 > > > libgfortran.so.3.0.0.gz > > > -rw-r--r-- 1 drkirkby staff 80K Feb 22 10:10 libgcc_s.so.1.gz > > > > So adding all 3 adds 2.3 MB of extra code to the binary. But given the > > > binary is > > > 500 MB (not untypical), that is less than 0.5% of bloat. > > > > By doing this, we ensure that people > > > > * Always have the libraries. > > > * Always have the exact same versions Sage was built with. > > > > I believe the Fortran library might already be included for Linux (I have > > > not > > > checked), but I'd suggest all 3 were added to binaries. > > > > The C library is the one people most likely will have, but given it is by > > > far > > > the smallest, we might as well include it to be 100% sure. > > > > Comments? > > > > Dave > > > Hi Dave, > > > this only is reasonable, if for building Sage we do not use the (or > > "a") "system's default compiler". So on GNU/Linux, or Mac OS X, this > > is almost a non-issue --- it's clear what this default compiler is, > > and Sage uses it. > > > It's far less clear on Solaris, or e.g. on Windows. If some future > > Sage is built with some Microsoft Visual C++ compiler, we will have to > > tell the casual user exactly which additional msvc libraries (for msvc > > 2008, or 2010, or ...) need to be installed on a "virgin" Windows in > > order for Sage to be able to run. (These additional libraries are free > > for download, but not free to distribute by others than Microsoft.) > > But then, these libraries will be installed in some system location. > > > Back to the Solaris case --- as long as we do not have some "GCC > > spkg", eventually optional, that installs the full GCC, I'm opposed to > > install its compiler specific libraries under $SAGE_ROOT. Instead, > > Sage should rely on them to be found in the standard system locations > > --- or in the ones the user explicitly communicates to Sage via > > environment variables. > > > Of course it would make sense to provide for Solaris some "minimal GCC > > library install" specifically adapted for the need of potential Sage > > users. > > (Just like in the case of Microsoft not urging users to install the > > full msvc, but providing some library-only package.) But IMHO, this is > > outside the scope of our current model of fully relocatable yet > > "open" (Sage) installs, so that would need to be offered somewhat in > > parallel. (Otherwise, Sage would need to be yet far more paranoid > > about taking in which dynamic libraries and how than today, see also > > Robert's remark.) > > > Cheers, > > Georg -- To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URL: http://www.sagemath.org
