Re: [sage-devel] use "./configure; make" for Sage?
Le jeudi 09 février, Julien Puydt a écrit: > Le mercredi 08 février, R. Andrew Ohana a écrit: > > On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 16:26, William Stein > > wrote: > > > Believe it or not, the environment variables that control how Sage > > > is built globally are documented (and aren't random): > > > > > > > > > http://sagemath.org/doc/installation/source.html#environment-variables > > > > Which I am always bring up to reference, it would be much nicer to > > have a simple "./configure --help" to list off my options. One thing > > that it would bring (that I would appreciate), would be the removal > > of the need to re-export any environmental variables when resuming a > > build from a different/new session. > > +1 I prefer when things get tested and discussed on small examples before any decision is made and serious work gets done. You'll find attached a trivial configure.ac, a trivial Makefile.in and a trivial print_my_env script. Those demonstrate how a configure script can decide the value a "SAGE" environment variable, how the Makefile can export it while calling print_my_env, which in fact just prints what it thinks is $SAGE. So basically, put those files in a directory, make the script executable, run autoconf, then ./configure then make, and it should give something like : jpuydt@newton:/tmp$ autoconf && ./configure && make configure: creating ./config.status config.status: creating Makefile SAGE=/here/it/is ./print_my_env /here/it/is This should help, Snark on #sagemath PS: notice that the value should be escaped more than this to handle more exotic values -- it's a toy example! -- 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 configure.ac Description: Binary data Makefile.in Description: Binary data print_my_env Description: Binary data
Re: [sage-devel] use "./configure; make" for Sage?
On 9 February 2012 18:23, William Stein wrote: > > FUD. I've spent significant time with autotools documentation. > If I could be bothered (which I can't), I could point to lots of things in that early prereq script which dont conform even one little bit to how you are supposed to use autoconf. > > > see his early attempt at the "prereq" configure script, which was > written to > > be processed by autoconf. Just about every reccomendation in the manual > was > > ignored. > > The manuals suck. > I disagree. > > > I still feel that what is being proposed is very vague. Is it to > deprecate all of these variables [1] (but still fully support them for > at least one year!), and make them options to a ./configure script? > > http://sagemath.org/doc/installation/source.html#environment-variables > > And, merge that with the current prereq autoconf code? Is that the > proposal? > There would be advantages to portability, even amoungst Linux users. One of the main concepts of the autotools is that you don't make choices based on the platform, but test the complete system (OS/compiler/linker etc). So instead of having endless workaround on specific distributions, you create a test (in C usually), that shows if the issue exists or not. Then you apply the workaround if the issue exists. Instead of testing for a SPARC processor if you have code which is big-endian/little endian specific, you should write a test which checks if the system is big/little endian. Then it automatically will work on any new big-endian processor. If something is an issue on Debian, instead of checking for Debian, you write a test for the problem. Then you have solved the issue for any system - one derrived from Debian, or even something completely differet. We have a patch which get added on Solaris sometimes, as there's a bug in a library, which has been fixed by a Sun patch. So one should write a test which checks if the bug exists or not. I think you would find that by doing away with a lot of patches which are applied on certain Linux distributions, you would get code which would work more easily on more There's a lot to be said for using autotools, but I would agree they are not the easiest tools to use, and I fear we might not get the full benefit. 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
Re: [sage-devel] use "./configure; make" for Sage?
Le jeudi 09 février, Martin Albrecht a écrit: > How about the configure script would write a makefile which would > setup the right environment variables that the spkg-install scripts > expect, so from their perspective nothing would change for now. +2 Snark on #sagemath -- 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
Re: Re: [sage-devel] use "./configure; make" for Sage?
This would definitely be the goal for the initial version of an autotools conversion: * Move prereq to $SAGE_ROOT * Just make configure set up the usual environment variables and write the top-level makefiel, but don't change anything in the sage build process. -- 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
Re: Re: [sage-devel] use "./configure; make" for Sage?
On Thursday 09 February 2012, Mike Hansen wrote: > On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 11:30 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > > No one has proposed anything un-vague yet. But yes, some of the > > environment variables would become ./configure options. Many of them > > would just go away though, since they manually tell the build process > > things that ./configure can determine on its own. > > This would probably also involve changing how the spkgs are built > since typically autotools will process a .in file to replace > constants. So, such a change would probably involve moving all of the > spkg-install (etc.) files out of the spkg files so that autotools can > process them. I think that change on its one might be more > worthwhile. How about the configure script would write a makefile which would setup the right environment variables that the spkg-install scripts expect, so from their perspective nothing would change for now. > > --Mike Cheers, Martin -- name: Martin Albrecht _pgp: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x8EF0DC99 _otr: 47F43D1A 5D68C36F 468BAEBA 640E8856 D7951CCF _www: http://martinralbrecht.wordpress.com/ _jab: martinralbre...@jabber.ccc.de -- 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
Re: [sage-devel] use "./configure; make" for Sage?
On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 11:30 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > No one has proposed anything un-vague yet. But yes, some of the environment > variables would become ./configure options. Many of them would just go away > though, since they manually tell the build process things that ./configure > can determine on its own. This would probably also involve changing how the spkgs are built since typically autotools will process a .in file to replace constants. So, such a change would probably involve moving all of the spkg-install (etc.) files out of the spkg files so that autotools can process them. I think that change on its one might be more worthwhile. --Mike -- 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
Re: [sage-devel] use "./configure; make" for Sage?
On 02/09/2012 01:23 PM, William Stein wrote: I still feel that what is being proposed is very vague. Is it to deprecate all of these variables [1] (but still fully support them for at least one year!), and make them options to a ./configure script? http://sagemath.org/doc/installation/source.html#environment-variables And, merge that with the current prereq autoconf code? Is that the proposal? No one has proposed anything un-vague yet. But yes, some of the environment variables would become ./configure options. Many of them would just go away though, since they manually tell the build process things that ./configure can determine on its own. Some likely candidates: SAGE64 CFLAG64 SAGE_FORTRAN SAGE_FORTRAN_LIB SAGE_ATLAS_ARCH SAGE_ATLAS_LIB INCLUDE_MPFR_PATCH -- 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
Re: [sage-devel] use "./configure; make" for Sage?
On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 8:01 AM, David Kirkby wrote: > > > On 9 February 2012 14:04, Michael Orlitzky wrote: >> >> I'll +1 both sides: >> >> 1) autotools is the worst thing on Earth > > > I believe if it was as bad as you make out, it would not be as popular as it > is. I would guess guess at least one third of open-source projects use it. > > I know William called it "autohell", but that's because he did not RTFM. I FUD. I've spent significant time with autotools documentation. > see his early attempt at the "prereq" configure script, which was written to > be processed by autoconf. Just about every reccomendation in the manual was > ignored. The manuals suck. >> 2) sage should use it > > > I'm not convinced of that myself. I think it would be an awful lot of work > to do it properly, but if done properly it would be good for Sage IMHO. I still feel that what is being proposed is very vague. Is it to deprecate all of these variables [1] (but still fully support them for at least one year!), and make them options to a ./configure script? http://sagemath.org/doc/installation/source.html#environment-variables And, merge that with the current prereq autoconf code? Is that the proposal? William -- 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
Re: [sage-devel] use "./configure; make" for Sage?
On 02/09/2012 11:01 AM, David Kirkby wrote: On 9 February 2012 14:04, Michael Orlitzky mailto:mich...@orlitzky.com>> wrote: I'll +1 both sides: 1) autotools is the worst thing on Earth I believe if it was as bad as you make out, it would not be as popular as it is. I would guess guess at least one third of open-source projects use it. I meant that in good humor. It's the best tool for the job, but is in no way enjoyable (for me) to work with. I know William called it "autohell", but that's because he did not RTFM. I see his early attempt at the "prereq" configure script, which was written to be processed by autoconf. Just about every reccomendation in the manual was ignored. I've done this; I think most developers have. There are thousands of pages in documentation and books, and none seem to be at the right level. Q: "What do I do with all this stuff?" A: Let's begin with an introduction to M4... -- 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
Re: [sage-devel] use "./configure; make" for Sage?
On 9 February 2012 14:04, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > I'll +1 both sides: > > 1) autotools is the worst thing on Earth > I believe if it was as bad as you make out, it would not be as popular as it is. I would guess guess at least one third of open-source projects use it. I know William called it "autohell", but that's because he did not RTFM. I see his early attempt at the "prereq" configure script, which was written to be processed by autoconf. Just about every reccomendation in the manual was ignored. 2) sage should use it I'm not convinced of that myself. I think it would be an awful lot of work to do it properly, but if done properly it would be good for Sage IMHO. 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
Re: [sage-devel] use "./configure; make" for Sage?
On 02/09/2012 09:21 AM, Julien Puydt wrote: It's unfair : the problems they try to solve is basically unsolvable, and that is _a part_ of why they're so complex. Agreed. And other build systems that work comparably-well usually end up looking worse. It will hurt, but it still should to be done, if I follow your reasoning? It shouldn't hurt too bad, and it's a one-time cost. I see two benefits. First, it offloads a huge amount of boilerplate code to the autotools developers which /sage/ developers never have to think about again. Second, for better or worse, it's the standard build system on Unix. New users and developers already know how it works, and don't have to go digging through documentation or code. Bonus benefit: it makes packaging easier. Portage in particular (and I would imagine all other source-based package managers) have autotools support built in. -- 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
Re: [sage-devel] use "./configure; make" for Sage?
Le jeudi 09 février, Michael Orlitzky a écrit: > I'll +1 both sides: > > 1) autotools is the worst thing on Earth It's unfair : the problems they try to solve is basically unsolvable, and that is _a part_ of why they're so complex. > 2) sage should use it It will hurt, but it still should to be done, if I follow your reasoning? Snark on #sagemath -- 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
Re: [sage-devel] use "./configure; make" for Sage?
I'll +1 both sides: 1) autotools is the worst thing on Earth 2) sage should use it -- 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
Re: [sage-devel] use "./configure; make" for Sage?
Le mercredi 08 février, R. Andrew Ohana a écrit: > On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 16:26, William Stein wrote: > > Believe it or not, the environment variables that control how Sage > > is built globally are documented (and aren't random): > > > > http://sagemath.org/doc/installation/source.html#environment-variables > > Which I am always bring up to reference, it would be much nicer to > have a simple "./configure --help" to list off my options. One thing > that it would bring (that I would appreciate), would be the removal of > the need to re-export any environmental variables when resuming a > build from a different/new session. +1 Snark on #sagemath -- 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
Re: [sage-devel] use "./configure; make" for Sage?
Le mercredi 08 février, Dr. David Kirkby a écrit: > On 02/ 8/12 09:41 AM, Julien Puydt wrote: > > Le mardi 7/2/2012, David Kirkby a écrit : > >> Unfortunately, from a developers point of view, it is not the > >> easiest language to learn, and my experience of many Sage > >> developers would suggest they will not be over keen on studying > >> the details of .autoconf I can't exactly blame them either. > > > > If there were : > > (1) some documentation on autoconf in sage ; > > That sounds like re-inventing the wheel, as others have written > documentation on autoconf. Unless there is anything Sage-specific, I > don't see the need for this. I meant "on (autoconf in sage)", sorry, indeed :-) I was thinking about specific m4 macros for use in sage and their documentation, even more precisely. Snark -- 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
Re: [sage-devel] use "./configure; make" for Sage?
On 02/ 9/12 04:33 AM, William Stein wrote: There is: http://sagemath.org/doc/installation/source.html#environment-variables I am all for moving that list to README.txt. It's often confused me that it wasn't there. -- william I think its good to have it on the web page. If it's "moved" to readme.txt, then I think it needs to be automatically generated. Otherwise it will be like the list of "supported platforms" used to be - numerous copies, with numerous differences between them. 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
Re: [sage-devel] use "./configure; make" for Sage?
On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 4:29 PM, Jonathan Bober wrote: > > > On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 4:00 PM, William Stein wrote: >> >> >> After following this whole thread, I still have absolutely no idea >> what this "non-trivial project" even is. What functionality is being >> proposed to add to the Sage build system? >> >> -- William >> >> > > I have been wondering the same thing. Some thoughts: > > First off, I would like to note that, even though it is a really trivial > thing, I really like that I can build all of Sage just by typing 'make'. I > have always thought it silly that I should have to type './configure' before > typing make for so many programs. I mean, I understand the point of it, but > why can't 'make' do whatever it is './configure' would do. > > Now, as far as Sage goes, I actually never just type 'make', which weakens > my point above. I always do something like > > export SAGE_PARALLEL_SPKG_BUILD='yes' > export MAKE='make -j8' > make > > (do I still need to do those things?) > > I would probably like to add some sort of atlas environment variable to that > list, to try to have atlas build in less than 2 hours, but I can never > remember what that variable is and what it should be set to. So, I > interpreted the original proposal as something along the lines as "It would > be nice if there were a simple script which I could run, which set these > environment variables for me, or did something which had the same effect." > Maybe if there were just a complete easy to read list of environment > variable which effect the build in the README.txt file, that would be > enough. There is: http://sagemath.org/doc/installation/source.html#environment-variables I am all for moving that list to README.txt. It's often confused me that it wasn't there. -- william > > -- > 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 -- William Stein Professor of Mathematics University of Washington http://wstein.org -- 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
Re: [sage-devel] use "./configure; make" for Sage?
On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 16:26, William Stein wrote: > On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 4:20 PM, Robert Bradshaw > wrote: >> On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 4:00 PM, William Stein wrote: >>> On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 3:39 PM, Dr. David Kirkby >>> wrote: On 02/ 8/12 09:41 AM, Julien Puydt wrote: > > Le mardi 7/2/2012, David Kirkby a écrit : >> >> Unfortunately, from a developers point of view, it is not the easiest >> language to learn, and my experience of many Sage developers would >> suggest they will not be over keen on studying the details >> of .autoconf I can't exactly blame them either. > > > If there were : > (1) some documentation on autoconf in sage ; That sounds like re-inventing the wheel, as others have written documentation on autoconf. Unless there is anything Sage-specific, I don't see the need for this. > (2) with already a few things converted to serve as examples ; There are lots of examples on the web, but I still believe a good understanding is required to write decent scripts for a non-trivial project like Sage. I don't think someone will get that by looking at others. > Then that would already cover a large proportion of the cases by > copy-pasting! I don't think its that easy to do it right. > Snark on #sagemath > I like the idea, and may be able to offer some help, but I'm aware this is a non-trivial project. The rewards would be pretty great though. >>> >>> After following this whole thread, I still have absolutely no idea >>> what this "non-trivial project" even is. What functionality is being >>> proposed to add to the Sage build system? >> >> I'm also curious how the top-level makefile would benefit from a >> (auto)configured, and what the implications would be for installing >> things (such as sage -i ...) when being invoked via this top-level >> make file. I do really like the idea of using (documented and checked) >> flags rather than random environment variables to control how things >> are build globally, as well as, if possible, persisting the decisions >> once ./configure is done running. > > Believe it or not, the environment variables that control how Sage is built > globally are documented (and aren't random): > > http://sagemath.org/doc/installation/source.html#environment-variables Which I am always bring up to reference, it would be much nicer to have a simple "./configure --help" to list off my options. One thing that it would bring (that I would appreciate), would be the removal of the need to re-export any environmental variables when resuming a build from a different/new session. > > -- William > >> >> - Robert >> >> -- >> 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 > > > > -- > William Stein > Professor of Mathematics > University of Washington > http://wstein.org > > -- > 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 -- Andrew -- 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
Re: [sage-devel] use "./configure; make" for Sage?
On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 4:00 PM, William Stein wrote: > > After following this whole thread, I still have absolutely no idea > what this "non-trivial project" even is. What functionality is being > proposed to add to the Sage build system? > > -- William > > > I have been wondering the same thing. Some thoughts: First off, I would like to note that, even though it is a really trivial thing, I really like that I can build all of Sage just by typing 'make'. I have always thought it silly that I should have to type './configure' before typing make for so many programs. I mean, I understand the point of it, but why can't 'make' do whatever it is './configure' would do. Now, as far as Sage goes, I actually never just type 'make', which weakens my point above. I always do something like export SAGE_PARALLEL_SPKG_BUILD='yes' export MAKE='make -j8' make (do I still need to do those things?) I would probably like to add some sort of atlas environment variable to that list, to try to have atlas build in less than 2 hours, but I can never remember what that variable is and what it should be set to. So, I interpreted the original proposal as something along the lines as "It would be nice if there were a simple script which I could run, which set these environment variables for me, or did something which had the same effect." Maybe if there were just a complete easy to read list of environment variable which effect the build in the README.txt file, that would be enough. -- 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
Re: [sage-devel] use "./configure; make" for Sage?
On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 4:20 PM, Robert Bradshaw wrote: > On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 4:00 PM, William Stein wrote: >> On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 3:39 PM, Dr. David Kirkby >> wrote: >>> On 02/ 8/12 09:41 AM, Julien Puydt wrote: Le mardi 7/2/2012, David Kirkby a écrit : > > Unfortunately, from a developers point of view, it is not the easiest > language to learn, and my experience of many Sage developers would > suggest they will not be over keen on studying the details > of .autoconf I can't exactly blame them either. If there were : (1) some documentation on autoconf in sage ; >>> >>> >>> That sounds like re-inventing the wheel, as others have written >>> documentation on autoconf. Unless there is anything Sage-specific, I don't >>> see the need for this. >>> >>> (2) with already a few things converted to serve as examples ; >>> >>> >>> There are lots of examples on the web, but I still believe a good >>> understanding is required to write decent scripts for a non-trivial project >>> like Sage. I don't think someone will get that by looking at others. >>> >>> Then that would already cover a large proportion of the cases by copy-pasting! >>> >>> >>> I don't think its that easy to do it right. >>> Snark on #sagemath >>> >>> I like the idea, and may be able to offer some help, but I'm aware this is a >>> non-trivial project. The rewards would be pretty great though. >> >> After following this whole thread, I still have absolutely no idea >> what this "non-trivial project" even is. What functionality is being >> proposed to add to the Sage build system? > > I'm also curious how the top-level makefile would benefit from a > (auto)configured, and what the implications would be for installing > things (such as sage -i ...) when being invoked via this top-level > make file. I do really like the idea of using (documented and checked) > flags rather than random environment variables to control how things > are build globally, as well as, if possible, persisting the decisions > once ./configure is done running. Believe it or not, the environment variables that control how Sage is built globally are documented (and aren't random): http://sagemath.org/doc/installation/source.html#environment-variables -- William > > - Robert > > -- > 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 -- William Stein Professor of Mathematics University of Washington http://wstein.org -- 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
Re: [sage-devel] use "./configure; make" for Sage?
On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 4:00 PM, William Stein wrote: > On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 3:39 PM, Dr. David Kirkby > wrote: >> On 02/ 8/12 09:41 AM, Julien Puydt wrote: >>> >>> Le mardi 7/2/2012, David Kirkby a écrit : Unfortunately, from a developers point of view, it is not the easiest language to learn, and my experience of many Sage developers would suggest they will not be over keen on studying the details of .autoconf I can't exactly blame them either. >>> >>> >>> If there were : >>> (1) some documentation on autoconf in sage ; >> >> >> That sounds like re-inventing the wheel, as others have written >> documentation on autoconf. Unless there is anything Sage-specific, I don't >> see the need for this. >> >> >>> (2) with already a few things converted to serve as examples ; >> >> >> There are lots of examples on the web, but I still believe a good >> understanding is required to write decent scripts for a non-trivial project >> like Sage. I don't think someone will get that by looking at others. >> >> >>> Then that would already cover a large proportion of the cases by >>> copy-pasting! >> >> >> I don't think its that easy to do it right. >> >>> Snark on #sagemath >>> >> >> I like the idea, and may be able to offer some help, but I'm aware this is a >> non-trivial project. The rewards would be pretty great though. > > After following this whole thread, I still have absolutely no idea > what this "non-trivial project" even is. What functionality is being > proposed to add to the Sage build system? I'm also curious how the top-level makefile would benefit from a (auto)configured, and what the implications would be for installing things (such as sage -i ...) when being invoked via this top-level make file. I do really like the idea of using (documented and checked) flags rather than random environment variables to control how things are build globally, as well as, if possible, persisting the decisions once ./configure is done running. - Robert -- 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
Re: [sage-devel] use "./configure; make" for Sage?
On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 3:39 PM, Dr. David Kirkby wrote: > On 02/ 8/12 09:41 AM, Julien Puydt wrote: >> >> Le mardi 7/2/2012, David Kirkby a écrit : >>> >>> Unfortunately, from a developers point of view, it is not the easiest >>> language to learn, and my experience of many Sage developers would >>> suggest they will not be over keen on studying the details >>> of .autoconf I can't exactly blame them either. >> >> >> If there were : >> (1) some documentation on autoconf in sage ; > > > That sounds like re-inventing the wheel, as others have written > documentation on autoconf. Unless there is anything Sage-specific, I don't > see the need for this. > > >> (2) with already a few things converted to serve as examples ; > > > There are lots of examples on the web, but I still believe a good > understanding is required to write decent scripts for a non-trivial project > like Sage. I don't think someone will get that by looking at others. > > >> Then that would already cover a large proportion of the cases by >> copy-pasting! > > > I don't think its that easy to do it right. > >> Snark on #sagemath >> > > I like the idea, and may be able to offer some help, but I'm aware this is a > non-trivial project. The rewards would be pretty great though. After following this whole thread, I still have absolutely no idea what this "non-trivial project" even is. What functionality is being proposed to add to the Sage build system? -- William -- William Stein Professor of Mathematics University of Washington http://wstein.org -- 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
Re: [sage-devel] use "./configure; make" for Sage?
On 02/ 8/12 09:41 AM, Julien Puydt wrote: Le mardi 7/2/2012, David Kirkby a écrit : Unfortunately, from a developers point of view, it is not the easiest language to learn, and my experience of many Sage developers would suggest they will not be over keen on studying the details of .autoconf I can't exactly blame them either. If there were : (1) some documentation on autoconf in sage ; That sounds like re-inventing the wheel, as others have written documentation on autoconf. Unless there is anything Sage-specific, I don't see the need for this. (2) with already a few things converted to serve as examples ; There are lots of examples on the web, but I still believe a good understanding is required to write decent scripts for a non-trivial project like Sage. I don't think someone will get that by looking at others. Then that would already cover a large proportion of the cases by copy-pasting! I don't think its that easy to do it right. Snark on #sagemath I like the idea, and may be able to offer some help, but I'm aware this is a non-trivial project. The rewards would be pretty great though. 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
Re: [sage-devel] use "./configure; make" for Sage?
Le mardi 7/2/2012, David Kirkby a écrit : > Unfortunately, from a developers point of view, it is not the easiest > language to learn, and my experience of many Sage developers would > suggest they will not be over keen on studying the details > of .autoconf I can't exactly blame them either. If there were : (1) some documentation on autoconf in sage ; (2) with already a few things converted to serve as examples ; Then that would already cover a large proportion of the cases by copy-pasting! Snark on #sagemath -- 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
Re: [sage-devel] use "./configure; make" for Sage?
On 7 February 2012 16:38, William Stein wrote: > On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 3:42 PM, Dr. David Kirkby > wrote: > > On 02/ 6/12 09:09 AM, Jeroen Demeyer wrote: > >> > >> On 2012-02-06 09:33, Dr. David Kirkby wrote: > >>> > >>> I think trying to replicate autotools would be just silly. > >> > >> That's what PARI tried and they are probably the spkg with the *most* > >> patches to the configuration system. > >> > > > > More fool them. > > I am not suggesting *replicating* autotools. I'm suggesting that we > should clearly identify exactly what this "./configure" is supposed to > accomplish before deciding on what tool to use to implement it. > Autconf may or may not be the right choice. > > -- William > I think from a user's perspective, if he/she sees a "configure" script, they are likely to assume it behaves the same way as 95+% of other configure scripts. They probably will not know or care how it was created, but they will probably appreciate if it works like most others. I maintain a chess program http://chessdb.sourceforge.net/ originally written by someone else. That has a "configure" script that is NOT generated by autoconf. I think that was a bad decision by the original author, as the script behaves differently to most others. Using it is less intuitive than one generated by autoconf. I know there are other packages which have non-autoconf "configure" scripts (I think Perl is one such program), but generally it's a lot easier for a user if the script behaves like he/she has seen so many times in the past, and is familiar with. I've used autoconf on a finite difference program I wrote for modelling transmission lines. http://atlc.sourceforge.net/ That worked very well, and allowed the code to be very portable - it has been built on a Cray supercomputer as well as a Sony Playstation, and pretty much any Unix or Unix-like system. Unfortunately, from a developers point of view, it is not the easiest language to learn, and my experience of many Sage developers would suggest they will not be over keen on studying the details of .autoconf I can't exactly blame them either. -- 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
Re: [sage-devel] use "./configure; make" for Sage?
Le Tue, 7 Feb 2012 08:38:16 -0800, William Stein a écrit : > On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 3:42 PM, Dr. David Kirkby > wrote: > > On 02/ 6/12 09:09 AM, Jeroen Demeyer wrote: > >> > >> On 2012-02-06 09:33, Dr. David Kirkby wrote: > >>> > >>> I think trying to replicate autotools would be just silly. > >> > >> That's what PARI tried and they are probably the spkg with the > >> *most* patches to the configuration system. > >> > > > > More fool them. > > I am not suggesting *replicating* autotools. I'm suggesting that we > should clearly identify exactly what this "./configure" is supposed to > accomplish before deciding on what tool to use to implement it. > Autconf may or may not be the right choice. Let me first start by saying that I disagree with calling pari developpers fools! A configure script is there to make the sources ready for compilation. Once you have configured the sources, they are supposed to just build. So it's the place where you detect what kind of hardware you're targetting (endianness, size and number of registers, availability of floating-point or vector units, etc), what kind of software you have available for the build (compilers, libraries, presence and version), what kind of software you have available for the runtime (which may not be the same). An autotools based build system has nice properties when done right : - the autotools need not be installed on a system to be used, ie: the sage developpers will need them to generate the configure script, but they are not needed to run the configure script ; - they handle out-of-tree builds nicely ; those can be used to build a same source code with different options (including the next point) ; - they make it easier to cross-build for another architecture ; - the different distributions' maintainers have it easy to package your software ; - they help with portability, as they handle a huge amount of different things. Snark on #sagemath -- 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
Re: [sage-devel] use "./configure; make" for Sage?
On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 3:42 PM, Dr. David Kirkby wrote: > On 02/ 6/12 09:09 AM, Jeroen Demeyer wrote: >> >> On 2012-02-06 09:33, Dr. David Kirkby wrote: >>> >>> I think trying to replicate autotools would be just silly. >> >> That's what PARI tried and they are probably the spkg with the *most* >> patches to the configuration system. >> > > More fool them. I am not suggesting *replicating* autotools. I'm suggesting that we should clearly identify exactly what this "./configure" is supposed to accomplish before deciding on what tool to use to implement it. Autconf may or may not be the right choice. -- William -- 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
Re: [sage-devel] use "./configure; make" for Sage?
On 02/ 6/12 09:09 AM, Jeroen Demeyer wrote: On 2012-02-06 09:33, Dr. David Kirkby wrote: I think trying to replicate autotools would be just silly. That's what PARI tried and they are probably the spkg with the *most* patches to the configuration system. More fool them. SCons is another attempt at a build system, but I was not keen on it. I noticed another Sage developer removed it from some package, as he too found it frustrating. I think autoconf/automake is very convenient for users, though it is not the easiest program for developers. I pretty much re-wrote the "prereq" script from scratch, as that was written to use autoconf, but whoever wrote it did not read the autoconf documentation. They just started coding, which is very unwise with autoconf. 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
Re: [sage-devel] use "./configure; make" for Sage?
On 2012-02-06 09:33, Dr. David Kirkby wrote: > I think trying to replicate autotools would be just silly. That's what PARI tried and they are probably the spkg with the *most* patches to the configuration system. -- 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
Re: [sage-devel] use "./configure; make" for Sage?
On 02/ 6/12 08:17 AM, Julien Puydt wrote: Le Mon, 06 Feb 2012 07:58:28 +, "Dr. David Kirkby" a écrit : It must be said, writing configure.ac makefile.am is not the easiest task - the language is not as intuitive as some. But it does work well, if implemented properly. It is indeed not trivial, but doable, and in any case : (1) trying to replicate the autotools won't be easier than just using them ; (2) trying to replicate the autotools would mean you lose the experience gained by their developpers (autotools cover a lot of terrible situations...) ; (3) trying to replicate the autotools would mean you take the burden of maintenance instead of their developpers ; (4) using the autotools there is documentation out there (real-world examples, books, forums, irc channels) ; (5) using the autotools there are people with experience with it out there which could lend a hand. Snark on #sagemath I agree with all of them. I would add, the autoconf mailing list is very active, and questions are answered timely. I think trying to replicate autotools would be just silly. -- A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail? -- 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
Re: [sage-devel] use "./configure; make" for Sage?
On 2012-02-05 22:23, John H Palmieri wrote: > [ ] Switch to autoconf > [ ] Keep the current build system [X] In theory, autoconf is a good idea. But regarding the build system, I think there are other priorities for the moment. -- 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
Re: [sage-devel] use "./configure; make" for Sage?
Le Mon, 06 Feb 2012 07:58:28 +, "Dr. David Kirkby" a écrit : > It must be said, writing configure.ac makefile.am is not the easiest > task - the language is not as intuitive as some. But it does work > well, if implemented properly. It is indeed not trivial, but doable, and in any case : (1) trying to replicate the autotools won't be easier than just using them ; (2) trying to replicate the autotools would mean you lose the experience gained by their developpers (autotools cover a lot of terrible situations...) ; (3) trying to replicate the autotools would mean you take the burden of maintenance instead of their developpers ; (4) using the autotools there is documentation out there (real-world examples, books, forums, irc channels) ; (5) using the autotools there are people with experience with it out there which could lend a hand. Snark on #sagemath -- 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
Re: [sage-devel] use "./configure; make" for Sage?
On Sun, 5 Feb 2012 13:23:19 -0800 (PST) John H Palmieri wrote: > Various aspects of building Sage might be cleaner if we used autoconf: > > ./configure OPTIONS > make > > OPTIONS could include a location to install Sage, various flags for > building ATLAS, and other options which we currently control by > setting environment variables. For typical users, we should aim for > > ./configure > make > > to work. We should also continue to use the current environment > variables--no need to remove them, just provide another way of > setting them. Should we vote? > > [ ] Switch to autoconf > [ ] Keep the current build system There was a similar discussion earlier: http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel/t/b2ece135b42b5d98 The SEP Ralf wrote is also mentioned in that thread: http://wiki.sagemath.org/AutoToolsSEP IMHO, moving the checks from prereq to a top level configure file makes sense. I used a waf script to handle this in lmonade: https://bitbucket.org/burcin/lmnd-prefix/src/tip/scripts/wscript 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
Re: [sage-devel] use "./configure; make" for Sage?
On 02/ 5/12 09:36 PM, William Stein wrote: An intermediate option might be of interest to people who have actually tried to write build systems using autoconf, a.k.a., "autohell": I think "autohell" happens when you can't be bothered to read the documentation and examples. The syntax is not the easiest, but nor is particularly difficult if you read the manual. 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
Re: [sage-devel] use "./configure; make" for Sage?
On 02/ 5/12 09:23 PM, John H Palmieri wrote: Various aspects of building Sage might be cleaner if we used autoconf: ./configure OPTIONS make I feel that would be a step forward. It would take a bit of work, but I've already done part of it with the "prereq" script, which uses autoconf. It must be said, writing configure.ac makefile.am is not the easiest task - the language is not as intuitive as some. But it does work well, if implemented properly. 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
Re: [sage-devel] use "./configure; make" for Sage?
Le dimanche 5/02/2012, John H Palmieri a écrit : > [ ] Switch to autoconf Yes! Snark on #sagemath -- 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
Re: [sage-devel] use "./configure; make" for Sage?
I think it's nice for people who are not used to Unix to be able to just type make rather than also having to run configure first. So I would support William's intermediate option, though I don't know whether we have anyone who actually wants to write such a configure script. David On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 13:36, William Stein wrote: > On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 1:23 PM, John H Palmieri > wrote: > > Various aspects of building Sage might be cleaner if we used autoconf: > > > > ./configure OPTIONS > > make > > > > OPTIONS could include a location to install Sage, various flags for > building > > ATLAS, and other options which we currently control by setting > environment > > variables. For typical users, we should aim for > > > > ./configure > > make > > > > to work. We should also continue to use the current environment > > variables--no need to remove them, just provide another way of setting > them. > > Should we vote? > > > > [ ] Switch to autoconf > > [ ] Keep the current build system > > An intermediate option might be of interest to people who have > actually tried to write build systems using autoconf, a.k.a., > "autohell": > > [ ] Support something we call "./configure". > > This ./configure may be optionally run before doing "make", and may or > may not actually be implemented using autoconf, but definitely will > use standard POSIX options, and support features mentioned above > (e.g., install locations). > > -- William > > > (Note that I'm not volunteering to implement this; I know nothing about > > writing configure.in scripts, and I don't want to learn...) > > > > -- > > John > > > > -- > > 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 > > > > -- > William Stein > Professor of Mathematics > University of Washington > http://wstein.org > > -- > 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 > -- 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
Re: [sage-devel] use "./configure; make" for Sage?
On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 1:23 PM, John H Palmieri wrote: > Various aspects of building Sage might be cleaner if we used autoconf: > > ./configure OPTIONS > make > > OPTIONS could include a location to install Sage, various flags for building > ATLAS, and other options which we currently control by setting environment > variables. For typical users, we should aim for > > ./configure > make > > to work. We should also continue to use the current environment > variables--no need to remove them, just provide another way of setting them. > Should we vote? > > [ ] Switch to autoconf > [ ] Keep the current build system An intermediate option might be of interest to people who have actually tried to write build systems using autoconf, a.k.a., "autohell": [ ] Support something we call "./configure". This ./configure may be optionally run before doing "make", and may or may not actually be implemented using autoconf, but definitely will use standard POSIX options, and support features mentioned above (e.g., install locations). -- William > (Note that I'm not volunteering to implement this; I know nothing about > writing configure.in scripts, and I don't want to learn...) > > -- > John > > -- > 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 -- William Stein Professor of Mathematics University of Washington http://wstein.org -- 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
[sage-devel] use "./configure; make" for Sage?
Various aspects of building Sage might be cleaner if we used autoconf: ./configure OPTIONS make OPTIONS could include a location to install Sage, various flags for building ATLAS, and other options which we currently control by setting environment variables. For typical users, we should aim for ./configure make to work. We should also continue to use the current environment variables--no need to remove them, just provide another way of setting them. Should we vote? [ ] Switch to autoconf [ ] Keep the current build system (Note that I'm not volunteering to implement this; I know nothing about writing configure.in scripts, and I don't want to learn...) -- John -- 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
