On Jul 15, 8:30 am, mabshoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jul 15, 7:29 am, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
>
> Hi Vincent
Sorry for the noise, I hit send by accident before rereading the email
and I need to correct some things:
> > Tried to answer earlier, but for some reason my answer didn't go
> > through ...
>
> Yeah, some times Google groups is a little funny in that regard.
>
> > Anyway, if it's not too much trouble to you, I am greatly
> > interested in a solaris9-sparc version, and I'm sure I'm not the only
> > one (even though potentially interested people might not subscribe to
> > this particular list).
>
> I have had Solaris 9/Sparc builds in the past. Since clisp does not
> compile properly on any Sparc box I ever tried I have moved to Solaris
> 10/Intel for now as primary port platform. Once we switch from clisp
> to ecl a Solaris 9/Sparc port should be doable. There was some trouble
> in Givaro due to them using fenv.h which is not present on Solaris
> before and including Solaris 10, but IIRC that code has been removed.
before and including *Solaris 9*
> So in short: It is likely that by mid to late August I can provide you
> with such a binary, but not at the moment.
>
> > I tried to build the thing myself, and was able to patch things up all
> > the way to ATLAS, where I had to give up.
>
> Which gcc did you use? I used a gcc 4.3.0 with GNU binutils 2.18 and
> did not hit any trouble.
>
> > Along the way, I was
> > wondering: exactly how many of the packages are needed in order to
> > reach the sage: prompt ? Even if 'make' does not go smoothly, some
> > functionality is better than nothing I guess ... and sage as a package
> > manager for its packages would still be extremely useful even if some
> > of them don't build out of the box.
>
> This is tricky and you do not to get past the Sage library stage. Then
This is tricky and you do *have* to get past the Sage library stage.
> you need Maxima, GAP and pyprocessing and Sage should start up.
>
> > BTW, do you have building instructions written somewhere ? I am
> > willing to experiment, but I would need a starting point ...
>
> I have a bunch of rather cryptic notes which has fixes that should
> mostly go into Sage 3.0.6.alpha0 which should happen in the next 24 to
> 48 hours. My main focus in the next two to three months are the
> Solaris, native Windows and OSX 64 bit port (in order of priority :)).
> As I mentioned the 3.0.5 binary works better than any other Sage
> release on Solaris in the last 15 months and I tracked down a number
> of issues to numpy doing bad things. At the moment 41 doctests fail of
> which about 20 are trivial failures that are caused by maybe 2, 3
> bugs. So things are looking up.
>
> > Thanks for all your work in any case !
>
> No problem. The more people play with the Solaris binary the better. I
> can also offer an SSE2 Opteron build, but my access to that box will
> cease while I am on the road starting in two days until I get back.
>
> > /vincent
>
> Cheers,
>
> Michael
Sorry for the noise again.
Cheers,
Michael
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel
URLs: http://www.sagemath.org
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
