I'm sure Singular has a process to fix the problems you mention.
All you have to do is send a 'diff -Naur' patch that improves the build.
You got hundreds of megabytes of code for free and you're complaining
because the install script isn't written the way you advocate?
Advocacy is volunteering.
Send them a thank-you note for all the free code and include a patch file.
Tim
"Open source... now it's YOUR problem to solve" -- daly
Dr. David Kirkby wrote:
On 06/ 6/10 11:48 PM, François Bissey wrote:
yes singular is a downright mess, upstream and in sage.
I'm glad I'm not alone in my view.
Apart from moving to the latest upstream I think the singular spkg
is due for a spring clean. It build an enormous amount of targets
in a way that looks like a very careful choreography and apart
from libsingular and the singular binary there is no indication
sage uses any of the other stuff built.
It does take a long time to build compared to most other packages,
which is probably due to the fact the package is large and so has a
lot of source code.
If a lot of the targets are unnecessary, then I suspect the build time
could be reduced. It took 40 minutes on my old 900 MHz SPARC, though I
could probably reduce that if targets can be built in parallel. But
even then, it is still going to be quite lengthy.
I have just read William's opinion and it may be true that is
generally easy
to build. But reproducing the set up used in the sage spkg from a
packaging
point of view is quite difficult.
Francois
Dave
--
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
