It seems to be a problem with dynamic linking in Mac OS X 10.6. I
personally don' t know, since I don't own a Mac.
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 10:29 PM, kcrisman wrote:
>
>
> On Aug 18, 9:46 am, Tim Joseph Dumol wrote:
>> They are under review as optional packages. In order to become
>
> Okay, as su
On Aug 18, 9:46 am, Tim Joseph Dumol wrote:
> They are under review as optional packages. In order to become
Okay, as suspected - it just doesn't say this on the tickets.
> > suppose ideally one would include a patch that gave a hint to install
> > these as optional packages if one encountered
They are under review as optional packages. In order to become
standard packages, they must be voted in here at sage-devel, and must
have 2 maintainers (iirc[1]).
[1] http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel/msg/6ea0a0e0a0a2a71a
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 8:09 AM, kcrisman wrote:
>
>
> On Aug 17,
On Aug 17, 2:18 pm, Tim Joseph Dumol wrote:
> New packages are up at #7344 and #7345
> (http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/7344andhttp://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/7345)
> for review that should
> hopefully work for all platforms.
Question - are these under review as optional or
New packages are up at #7344 and #7345
(http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/7344 and
http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/7345) for review that should
hopefully work for all platforms.
On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 2:31 AM, Tim Joseph Dumol wrote:
> Hi,
>
> SAGE_BINARY_BUILD was introduced as
Hi,
SAGE_BINARY_BUILD was introduced as a compromise when it was decided
that libjpeg and libtiff were to be introduced first as optional
packages, since PIL is a standard package. Without SAGE_BINARY_BUILD
set, binary distributions have PIL link with libjpeg and libtiff as
shared libraries, which
On Aug 2, 2:05 pm, John H Palmieri wrote:
> On Aug 2, 11:01 am, kcrisman wrote:
>
> > Great, this is exactly what I had figured was going on now. It is
> > very unfortunate that PIL does this. But at any rate I am making sure
> > these tickets have that thread referenced, which they currently
On Aug 2, 11:01 am, kcrisman wrote:
> Great, this is exactly what I had figured was going on now. It is
> very unfortunate that PIL does this. But at any rate I am making sure
> these tickets have that thread referenced, which they currently
> don't.
>
> Also, what other effects will SAGE_BINA
Great, this is exactly what I had figured was going on now. It is
very unfortunate that PIL does this. But at any rate I am making sure
these tickets have that thread referenced, which they currently
don't.
Also, what other effects will SAGE_BINARY_BUILD have on a source
build? After all, I'm n
On Aug 2, 9:34 am, kcrisman wrote:
> On Jun 15, 1:14 pm, "Justin C. Walker" wrote:
>
> > On Jun 15, 2010, at 09:50 ,kcrismanwrote:
>
> > > I haven't posted about this before, but on my OSX 10.6 MacBook Pro, I
> > > have consistently gotten this error when doing doctesting ofsage/
> > > plot/
>
On Jun 15, 1:14 pm, "Justin C. Walker" wrote:
> On Jun 15, 2010, at 09:50 ,kcrismanwrote:
>
> > I haven't posted about this before, but on my OSX 10.6 MacBook Pro, I
> > have consistently gotten this error when doing doctesting ofsage/
> > plot/
> > plot3d/base.pyx. Built from scratch, doesn't
11 matches
Mail list logo
