I think the Sage policy should be to never ship part of the toolchain.
In the particular case of gfortran OSX, it seems to be easy enough to
install the .dmg file. Ideally, Sage should have
1) easy-to-follow documentation for setting up the toolchain.
Preferably from some standard repository for t
On 26 Okt., 12:39, Volker Braun wrote:
> 2) a "configure"-like test script that tests the requirements and
> gives useful hints on how to install missing pieces of the toolchain
> and/or required libraries.
Yep. Especially odd is that Sage ships four MacOS X *binaries* in a so-
called *source* di
I don't like having different source distributions for different
OS'es. Thats unnecessary added complexity. If you want to save a few
megabytes you can always rsync the sage.tar archive, this will avoid
retransmitting the unchanged spkgs.
Volker
On Oct 26, 1:30 pm, leif wrote:
> On 26 Okt., 12:
No offense, but everyone who has written so far in this thread is
speaking only to people who know what the word "toolchain" means in
this context. Unfortunately, Apple doesn't provide a fortran
compiler, and setting one up for those who don't know that word is
nontrivial and goes against the (in
> Could we instead ship the *source code* of the fortran compiler? That
> would almost certainly be smaller.
>
No idea how easy that would be. I'm sure it could be done, but
actually implementing it might get a little tricky.
G95: Instructions at http://www.g95.org/source.shtml seem
straightfo
On 26 Okt., 15:15, Volker Braun wrote:
> I don't like having different source distributions for different
> OS'es.
Me either, but if we keep shipping binaries in a source distributions
that's an easy way to go:
Create a fortran-x.y.z-darwin.spkg that's only included in sage-u.v.w-
darwin.tar, tri
Leif -
Any thoughts on the source suggestion? If there really would be
little confusion with a separate Darwin source distribution that
included fortran (where it could be verified this was the only
difference), that might also be a way to go, as you say.
> Also, I guess there are people using o
> > downloading Xcode or installing it is a little annoying,
> > but fairly straightforward even for newbies, because Apple wants to
> > make it easy for them. But fortran is another matter.
I just tried http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/GFortranBinariesMacOS on OSX 10.6
and all I had to do was click on t
On Oct 26, 7:11 am, kcrisman wrote:
> Leif -
>
> Any thoughts on the source suggestion? If there really would be
> little confusion with a separate Darwin source distribution that
> included fortran (where it could be verified this was the only
> difference), that might also be a way to go, as yo
On 26 Okt., 16:11, kcrisman wrote:
> Leif -
>
> Any thoughts on the source suggestion? If there really would be
> little confusion with a separate Darwin source distribution that
> included fortran (where it could be verified this was the only
> difference), that might also be a way to go, as you
> Please also try on PPC OS X 10.4, 10.5, and 10.6, and
Maybe not the PPC OS X 10.6 ;-) that would be *truly* impressive!
> I oscillate in my hopes about cygwin... There are other approaches to
Oh, but for a double-clickable binary at least! Even if to do
development work would be too hard to
On 26 Okt., 19:36, William Stein wrote:
> Regarding fortran, for a "Microsoft Visual C++" version of Sage, I
> will just get rid of Fortran (and Lisp) entirely, and not bother with
> building anything currently in Sage that depends on them...
Feed f2c with all Fortran sources and ship the results
Hi folks,
for sime time now, there is a tendency of the Sage distribution to
become unmaintanable (only minutes ago, I read the upteenth message
thread and trac ticket about the recurrent Suse Linux 11.x/Arch Linux
bash/readline issue ...).
There are several possibilities/ways to go.
One way I e
On 26 Okt., 22:42, "Dr. David Kirkby" wrote:
> BTW, would it not be better to delete this page? I found it while Googling
>
> http://wiki.sagemath.org/windows/cygwin-issues
>
> it seems rather out of date.
Something to keep for software archaeologists. (SCNR)
-Leif
--
To post to this group, s
Hi Francois,
>
> Well thanks for the plug for our work. We are quite happy to develop the
> prefix
:-)
> part of sage-on-gentoo, so far the effort has been limited but if you are
> testing it on an arch we are quite happy to try to get as much as possible
> keyworded.
Is the keywording the mos
> > Regarding fortran, for a "Microsoft Visual C++" version of Sage, I
> > will just get rid of Fortran (and Lisp) entirely, and not bother with
> > building anything currently in Sage that depends on them...
>
> My thoughts about fortran oscillate as well. If I have the option, I
> try to just us
Sorry OT
On Oct 28, 12:50 am, Ondrej Certik wrote:
> Especially after reading benchmarks like these:
> http://www.oonumerics.org/blitz/benchmarks/acou3d.html
> where one needs to use templates and lots of expertize in C++ to even
> beat fortran code written by pretty much anybody...
Well the ben
>
> The Sage packages that directly depend on Fortran are: R, f2c,
> lapack, blas, numpy, scipy, cvxopt:
>
> Note that numpy can be built and used *without* fortran, e.g., when I
> removed fortran from psage I kept numpy...
>
So a non-Fortran Sage would lose a lot of numerical ability (mpmath
wo
On Oct 27, 11:16 pm, William Stein wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 7:52 PM, kcrisman wrote:
>
> >> The Sage packages that directly depend on Fortran are: R, f2c,
> >> lapack, blas, numpy, scipy, cvxopt:
>
> >> Note that numpy can be built and used *without* fortran, e.g., when I
> >> removed
On 28 Okt., 03:52, kcrisman wrote:
> > The Sage packages that directly depend on Fortran are: R, f2c,
> > lapack, blas, numpy, scipy, cvxopt:
>
> > Note that numpy can be built and used *without* fortran, e.g., when I
> > removed fortran from psage I kept numpy...
>
> So a non-Fortran Sage would
I agree that it is a bad policy to ship binaries in a source distribution.
I would suggest a separate package for MAC OS with the binaries of the
compiler if this is reallly needed
On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 9:30 AM, leif wrote:
> On 26 Okt., 12:39, Volker Braun wrote:
>> 2) a "configure"-like tes
On 2010-10-26 15:15, kcrisman wrote:
> Basically, someone who would like to have a brand spankin' new Sage
> they can call their own (as opposed to a binary download) should not
> have needless hurdles placed in front of them. Should we provide
> gcc? No - downloading Xcode or installing it is a
No, my point is that gfortran is not distributed with sage in source form.
I think that we should either
'- include gfortran in source form in sage distribution
- split the binary files in a separated file
otherwise it is not a source distribution.
)but a mix of a source and a binary one. This coul
On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 6:15 AM, kcrisman wrote:
> No offense, but everyone who has written so far in this thread is
> speaking only to people who know what the word "toolchain" means in
> this context. Unfortunately, Apple doesn't provide a fortran
> compiler, and setting one up for those who do
On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 8:18 AM, Pablo De Napoli wrote:
> No, my point is that gfortran is not distributed with sage in source form.
> I think that we should either
> '- include gfortran in source form in sage distribution
Including gfortran or g95 in source form is not realistic, as you'll
disco
On 10/26/10 04:24 PM, William Stein wrote:
Confusing users needlessly to save 30MB is not an option.
And people who seriously care about whether or not sage-x.y.z.tar is a
"source distribution" in some pure sense can (and do!) just delete
fortran.spkg. Most users just care that whatever sage-x
On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 12:24 PM, William Stein wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 8:18 AM, Pablo De Napoli wrote:
>> No, my point is that gfortran is not distributed with sage in source form.
>> I think that we should either
>> '- include gfortran in source form in sage distribution
>
> Including
On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 10:11 AM, Volker Braun wrote:
>> > downloading Xcode or installing it is a little annoying,
>> > but fairly straightforward even for newbies, because Apple wants to
>> > make it easy for them. But fortran is another matter.
>
> I just tried http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/GFortra
On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 11:15 AM, leif wrote:
> On 26 Okt., 19:36, William Stein wrote:
>> Regarding fortran, for a "Microsoft Visual C++" version of Sage, I
>> will just get rid of Fortran (and Lisp) entirely, and not bother with
>> building anything currently in Sage that depends on them...
>
>
On 10/26/10 06:36 PM, William Stein wrote:
I oscillate in my hopes about cygwin... There are other approaches to
Sage on Windows, e.g.,:
http://windows.sagemath.org/
Is the Cygwin problem just that nobody is working on it, or are there
fundamental reasons why it is causing a problem.
On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 1:42 PM, Dr. David Kirkby
wrote:
> I personally don't see why the Cygwin port should be so hard. From what I
> understand, there are only a dozen or so doctest issues to resolve.
It's not hard -- I've just been busy with other things and haven't
worked on it. No one else
> Hi folks,
>
> for sime time now, there is a tendency of the Sage distribution to
> become unmaintanable (only minutes ago, I read the upteenth message
> thread and trac ticket about the recurrent Suse Linux 11.x/Arch Linux
> bash/readline issue ...).
>
> There are several possibilities/ways to
Hi Georg
> Hi Francois,
>
> > Well thanks for the plug for our work. We are quite happy to develop the
> > prefix
> :
> :-)
> :
> > part of sage-on-gentoo, so far the effort has been limited but if you are
> > testing it on an arch we are quite happy to try to get as much as
> > possible keyworde
On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 10:36 AM, William Stein wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 10:11 AM, Volker Braun wrote:
>>> > downloading Xcode or installing it is a little annoying,
>>> > but fairly straightforward even for newbies, because Apple wants to
>>> > make it easy for them. But fortran is ano
On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 6:01 PM, kcrisman wrote:
>
>> > Regarding fortran, for a "Microsoft Visual C++" version of Sage, I
>> > will just get rid of Fortran (and Lisp) entirely, and not bother with
>> > building anything currently in Sage that depends on them...
>>
>> My thoughts about fortran osc
On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 7:52 PM, kcrisman wrote:
>>
>> The Sage packages that directly depend on Fortran are: R, f2c,
>> lapack, blas, numpy, scipy, cvxopt:
>>
>
>> Note that numpy can be built and used *without* fortran, e.g., when I
>> removed fortran from psage I kept numpy...
>>
>
> So a non-
On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 8:56 PM, kcrisman wrote:
>
>
> On Oct 27, 11:16 pm, William Stein wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 7:52 PM, kcrisman wrote:
>>
>> >> The Sage packages that directly depend on Fortran are: R, f2c,
>> >> lapack, blas, numpy, scipy, cvxopt:
>>
>> >> Note that numpy can be
> On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 6:01 PM, kcrisman wrote:
> >> > Regarding fortran, for a "Microsoft Visual C++" version of Sage, I
> >> > will just get rid of Fortran (and Lisp) entirely, and not bother with
> >> > building anything currently in Sage that depends on them...
> >>
> >> My thoughts about
On 10/26/10 08:32 PM, William Stein wrote:
On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 11:15 AM, leif wrote:
On 26 Okt., 19:36, William Stein wrote:
Regarding fortran, for a "Microsoft Visual C++" version of Sage, I
will just get rid of Fortran (and Lisp) entirely, and not bother with
building anything currently
39 matches
Mail list logo
