> Could we instead ship the *source code* of the fortran compiler? That > would almost certainly be smaller. >
No idea how easy that would be. I'm sure it could be done, but actually implementing it might get a little tricky. G95: Instructions at http://www.g95.org/source.shtml seem straightforward for people who know how to configure properly (sadly, I am not at that point), and seems like it could be automated spkg- style. This would only need to happen for OS X 10.4, so checking in the spkg for uname with Darwin 8.x would be sufficient; we do things like that elsewhere, presumably including the current fortran spkg. Unfortunately, although it is possible to do Gfortran on OS X 10.4, it's not so easy because you need a newer gcc which isn't included, and if we are including batteries we probably don't want to include a different gcc; Xcode makes things pretty easy. Gfortran: The page http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/GFortranSource has more spartan instructions. It also isn't easy to disentangle from gcc itself (I mean, there is stuff in there, but I don't know whether it would play nicely with Apple's gcc). We might in that case need to do it version-by-version - we have a few different gfortran binaries, so we'd likely have to include all of the appropriate sources. Still, each of these are <2 MB in bz2 format, so I would estimate we could get in under 10 MB total with just source if we could figure out how to do it right, maybe more like 3-4 MB if we only needed one version of gfortran. That would be a nice compromise to the issues raised here, and I'd be very happy to test these (as I'm sure some others would be as well); unfortunately, I don't have the skills needed to actually create such an spkg. - kcrisman -- 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
