Hi Francois, let's move the discussion to sage-devel.
For reference: We have been talking about replacing the sage build system with the gentoo package manager and ebuilds via gentoo prefix: https://github.com/cschwan/sage-on-gentoo/issues/52#issuecomment-982600 Francois Bissey wrote: > We shouldn't continue the discussion here but at least its documented. Yes > you can relocate a prefix on some platform (I am not sure you can easily on > aix but we are not too concerned by that). > > But I think if we want to replace the spkg system by ebuilds we could go some > other ways. > > - using host gcc with a set of flags in a special sage profile that would > mimic some of the set up in numerous spkg. - use Volker's gcc wrapper to use > the host gcc and create a relative prefix instead of fixed one. I think we > have a fixed prefix because a relative one would be hard to set up on some > platforms. When I saw Volker's message, I also started thinking of using these wrappers instead of gcc. Is there a virtual/compiler etc. we can provide in a gccwrapper ebuild to make this work seemlessly? Or do we still need to add gcc to packages.provided? > The main difficulty becomes the bootstraping we need to get a working > prefixed python in a seamless fashion. +1. I will try to make a tarball which handles bootstrapping a sage-prefix. :) I don't have much experience with gentoo-prefix yet, so it might take a while before I get a handle on things. > There are other issues. The current overlay provides an alternate way of > building sage already but it is not as lightweight as you'd like. This is something that needs to be changed "upstream", in Sage, anyway. There were comments on sage-devel about changing the way the library is built so that it works without a separate build directory. > Aside from that it is not as developer friendly as vanilla sage. You cannot > apply a patch and do "sage -b". Effectively to apply a patch I change the > ebuild and do the equivalent of "sage -ba". On the other hand upgrade always > works :) Can't we tell emerge to "keepwork" and allow people to "make install" from the work copy? I guess this means overriding the sandbox setup somehow. If we place the working copy in a more visible place, like ${EPREFIX}/devel, this would match the current development model. This would also allow people to easily develop other packages in Sage. Cheers, Burcin -- 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
