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):
> > >
> > >
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.
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 grou
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, sen
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 manu
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 de
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/sou
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 leas
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 gue
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
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 b
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
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
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#envi
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 sugges
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 "move
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 buil
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 mar
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 thin
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
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
lan
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
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
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
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'
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.
> >
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*
>>
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 att
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 unsubscrib
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 tri
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@googlegrou
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)
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 curre
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 t
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
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 grou
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,
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
38 matches
Mail list logo
