Hi,
Sorry for not getting pack to this thread before. I'm still having this
issue that newly compiled Sage is missing many packages.
Overnight I did `make distclean && make --trace --debug=bvjm` on Sage
7.3.beta7 with #20926 applied (gcc6.1 C++ workarounds). I had downgraded
my Make to version 4.
Johan S. H. Rosenkilde wrote:
>> Except for the Sage library (and probably docbuilding, not sure), yes.
>> If you explicitly use 'make -j1', then also the Sage library will be
>> built sequentially, still using Python's multi-processing though, as
>> does docbuilding.
>
> I've done `make distclean
Hi,
I just noticed, in the very beginning when doing "make" after distclean,
the build process prints a list of packages:
checking package versions...
4ti2-1.6.7
alabaster-0.7.8
arb-2.8.1.p0
...
This list *does* contain the uninstalled packages:
database_cremona_ellcurve-20
> Except for the Sage library (and probably docbuilding, not sure), yes.
> If you explicitly use 'make -j1', then also the Sage library will be
> built sequentially, still using Python's multi-processing though, as
> does docbuilding.
I've done `make distclean && make -j1`. Let's see how that one
Johan S. H. Rosenkilde wrote:
>> $ make --version
> GNU Make 4.2.1
> Built for x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
>
>> Did you build in parallel, and if so, does probably building
>> sequentially fix the problem (such that the missing packages then get
>> built)?
>
> I just did "make"; the default is still sequ
> $ make --version
GNU Make 4.2.1
Built for x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
> Did you build in parallel, and if so, does probably building
> sequentially fix the problem (such that the missing packages then get
> built)?
I just did "make"; the default is still sequential build, right? I have
no suspect envir
Johan S. R. Nielsen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've now recompiled Sage after rolling back llvm-libs to 3.7.1-1 (was
> 3.8.0.1). That fixed the GLIBCXX errors spewing out of ar and ranlib,
> but it didn't fix the problem: my newly compiled version of Sage is
> still born without most of the default spkgs, i
Hi,
I've now recompiled Sage after rolling back llvm-libs to 3.7.1-1 (was
3.8.0.1). That fixed the GLIBCXX errors spewing out of ar and ranlib, but
it didn't fix the problem: my newly compiled version of Sage is still born
without most of the default spkgs, including sympy, jmol, palp,
cremona
Hi leif,
> Well, it's apparently just that your toolchain isn't using binutils
> consistently; usually LLVM's tools get installed as 'llvm-ar' and
> 'llvm-ranlib', or they don't get installed into the default PATH.
I don't have llvm-ar or llvm-ranlib installed AFAIK (they're in the
package llvm w
Johan S. H. Rosenkilde wrote:
>>> ar: /usr/lib/libstdc++.so.6: version `GLIBCXX_3.4.22' not found (required
>>> by /usr/lib/libLLVM-3.8.so)
>>
>>
>> Are you using llvm? As far as I know that doesnt' work, though I haven't
>> tried it myself.
>
> I was baffled about that too. I haven't consciou
>> ar: /usr/lib/libstdc++.so.6: version `GLIBCXX_3.4.22' not found (required
>> by /usr/lib/libLLVM-3.8.so)
>
>
> Are you using llvm? As far as I know that doesnt' work, though I haven't
> tried it myself.
I was baffled about that too. I haven't consciously done anything that
would use llvm. I
On Thursday, June 30, 2016 at 2:26:47 PM UTC+2, Johan S. R. Nielsen wrote:
>
> ar: /usr/lib/libstdc++.so.6: version `GLIBCXX_3.4.22' not found (required
> by /usr/lib/libLLVM-3.8.so)
Are you using llvm? As far as I know that doesnt' work, though I haven't
tried it myself.
--
You received th
> sounds like the first "make" failed...
That's not clear to me. The compile of Sage itself seemed to work but
then make failed during doc-building. This has happened so often during
the years I've worked with Sage, however, that I've learned to ignore
it. Inspecting the error now, I see that this
sounds like the first "make" failed...
On Wednesday, June 29, 2016 at 5:38:24 PM UTC+2, Johan S. R. Nielsen wrote:
>
> Hi sage-devel
>
> Today I made a fresh clone of the develop branch, ran "make", and then
> tried to run "./sage -t". To my surprise, this didn't work at all!
>
> First off, th
14 matches
Mail list logo
