Am Montag, 23. Dezember 2013 22:36:34 UTC schrieb Volker Braun: > > On Monday, December 23, 2013 10:07:12 PM UTC, Emil Widmann wrote >> >> *Hiccup 2: SAGE_FAT_BINARIES / SAGE_ATLAS_ARCH conflict* >> > > It seems that you set both, which does not make sense. SAGE_FAT_BINARY=yes > will build a binary that we consider "generic". You either build that, or > you specify the architecture in detail. It doesn't make sense to do both. > > Moreover, you set SAGE_ATLAS_ARCH to the empty string. That's entirely > wrong. > > Thank you for the quick answers. May I still ask what is "generic" and which processor will be the minimum on the x86 scale that will be supportet with SAGE_FAT_BINARIES? Why is it entirely wrong to set SAGE_ATLAS_ARCH to the empty string, will I have to recompile everything if I want a distributable version?
>From the existing documentation this is not clear and I think missleading. About SAGE_ATLAS_ARCH it says "It is recommended to specify a suitable architecture on laptops or other systems with CPU throttling or if you want to distribute the binaries." and there is no hint that you shouldn't set it when you build with SAGE_FAT_BINARIES. The places I found doc about this is: http://sagemath.org/doc/installation/source.html#environment-variables and in the README.txt (Line Nr. 360) cheers! -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
