On Sun, Apr 21, 2013 at 05:22:30AM -0700, R. Andrew Ohana wrote:
> > it's not completely rewriting, think of it as modularization/conversion
> > (while adding checks for availability/headers/libraries and the like).
> >
>
> Ah, yes, I see your point. One suggestion then is to maybe think about
> adding such checking functionality to Cython directly (since it already
> computes the entire dependency tree, just doesn't have any of the necessary
> checks).
a configure script would locate headers depending on the flags
(--with-ntl=/here/or/there ...), does a check (optional) and then sets
CFLAGS/wheteverFLAGS accordingly. Cython is used to write .c out of
.pyx, i don't see why/how it could care about configure options.
(just to be sure: what does it have to do with a dependency tree?)
> No, I did not me a top-level build system -- as I see it there are three
> embedded levels of sage:
>
> 1) sage as a python library
> 2) sage as a program (i.e. the terminal command prompt/notebook)
> 3) sage as a distribution.
sage as a program is in <git-transition-repo>/src/bin. there used to be
a sage-scripts.spkg. notebook is another package...
yes, these need also be considered modules/packages.
> Currently you can only get to 1 and 2 as components of 3, and the goal of
> this project is to make it more modular so as to be able to get at 1 and 2
> outside of 3.
agreed.
> To me it makes the most sense to have a single configure
> script for 2 (as a set), with a configure flag to just build 1, the python
> library (if so desired).
in the end, sage ("the distribution"), i.e. the top-level-stuff, must
take care of building/installing the modules in the right order. having
one module that builds another undermines this logic.
so for example, if you want to install 1) and 2), there would be three
options
- your linux distribution already ships 1) and 2)
- use 3)
- just install 1) and 2) manually (but why?)
> A top-level configure script (from how take people to use the term), would
> be a configure script for 3.
agreed. at best one that allows you to select just 1) and 2).
> > it might make sense to call distutils from an autotools Makefile (at
> > least for the python part).
>
> I guess I was a bit unclear, this is what I meant.
i can investigate that.
regards
felix
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
