On Jul 19, 11:53 pm, "Dr. David Kirkby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Jul 19, 11:38 pm, mabshoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
> > On Jul 19, 2:45 am, "Dr. David Kirkby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On 18 Jul, 20:33, "Harald Schilly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > <SNIP>
>
> > > 12) Once a Solaris port is done, try to get Blastwave and Sunfreeware
> > > to keep packages. I'm not sure if Blastware will, as I think they want
> > > Solaris 8 packages. But I guess if it does not run on Solaris 8, they
> > > might accept it.
>
> > There is no way I personally will spend any time at all on Solaris 8,
> > but I will certainly accept patches.
>
> I'm not sure of their exact policy, but I believe if the software runs
> under Solaris 8, the package they keep must run under Solaris 8. That
> is a pain if you produce a package for them, as it means either you
> need a Solaris 8 boxes (SPARC and x86), or you use their box, but that
> is quite complex, as you don't get root access.
Ok, we had some discussions off list about Solaris support in general
and back then the possibility of setting up a Sparc with Solaris 8
came up, so I could have "my own" box to do the port.
> I suspect if you say "this software is specified to run under Solaris
> 10 or greater", then they would accept it and not insist it runs under
> 8. I think the issue is that if the software runs under 8, the package
> must be suitable for a Solaris 8 system. I'm guessing the same must be
> true for x86/SPARC - they can't insist you build both packages if the
> software only runs on one. But if it does run on both, they insist you
> to build it on both.
Ok, good to know. I don't know the "rules" over there, so thanks for
clearing that up.
> > I am willing to do Solaris 9 on
> > Sparc, but Solaris 9 on x86[-x64] is likely not going to happen
> > either, while the same thing about patches applies.
>
> I don't blame you - I would do the same.
Solaris 9 on x86[-64] was never officially available IIRC and Solaris
8 on x86[-64] ought to be a rarity these days since Sun treated
x86[-64] as a red headed step child up until the Solaris 10 release
IMHO. So there should be no significant in relation even to the
Solaris install base for pre Solaris 10 on x86[-64].
> The only downside is the SPARC versions would not run on the earlier
> 32-bit systems (SPARC 4, SPARC 5, SPARC 10, SPARC 20 etc.) But given
> an Ultra 5 is almost given away (I've seen $5 mentioned for them),
> there seems to be no real reason to stick with these very old machines
> (says he who has got 5 x SPARC 20 in his garage!!!).
Hehe, old hardware is fun, but I do not do any work on them. Even
compiling ATLAS on such a box is likely a huge pain in the ass and not
worth it IMHO. We can always use the Sunperflib obviously.
> > interested in the future Solaris 11/Express Edition. Various people
> > have told me that many installs either stuck with Solaris 8 or went to
> > Solaris 10, i.e. not many installs stuck with Solaris 9.
>
> In any case, I think people running software like Sage are not not
> going to be in a position of not upgrading a machine from 8 or 9 due
> to company policy, or the fact their vendors database is not specified
> etc.
Yes, that is true. Some little birdy told me a while back that a large
university in Canada is still running their Sparc boxen with Solaris 8
and they do have a lot of them according to my source. But there is
only so much time I can spend on any given day and unless people speak
up and let me know that there is significant interest in Sage on
Solaris 8 [and to be mean I have to add it helps a lot to have some
people with significant political pull here] it will not be high on
the list of things to do.
> > getting paid to support Solaris 10 and Express (and I guess 11 once it
> > is out) that is where my energy will go. In the end I believe that our
> > own repo will always be more current and I have no interest in
> > breaking Sage up into packages. I am willing to help if other people
> > want to attempt that for Solaris.
>
> I think it would be useful if a single package for Sage on Sunfreeware
> and another on Blastwave. Simply because a lot of people use them
> sites, and so are more likely to install Sage if found there.
Ok, so there is no annoying IMHO Debian policy like thing for
Sunfreeware it seems which will make a monolithic tarball much easier.
> Ultimately, it would be nice to get Sun to put it on the Solaris
> Express DVD, but I image that would not be quite so easy to do.
Yes, one would imagine competition here is rather fierce.
> > > You might get some problems getting Sunfreewave to
> > > have a package, as the owner of that site (Steve Christensen) works
> > > for Wolfram Research, produces his own Mathematica addon and moderates
> > > comp.soft-sys.math.mathematica. I suspect, given he does not allow
> > > other software to be discussed on comp.soft-sys.math.mathematica, he
> > > might be reluctant to produce a package for Sage. But you can only
> > > ask.
>
> > Well, let's hope for the best and assume that he will be a good guy
> > about this unless there is evidence against him. I see no reason why
> > his duties in the newsgroups should interfere with "Sunfreeware hat".
>
> No, but he might not be too keen on "promoting" software which might
> interfere with sales of his Tensor analysis software. I could hardly
> blame him, as he obviously generates some of his income from that
> software.
Sure, but conflict of interest is one thing, acting on it is another.
> That said, I've had a few discussions with people who produce add-on's
> for Mathematica. One is distributed by Wolfram, the other is not.
> Neither seem to make much money from it. Also I've noticed a few
> packages never get updated. I don't think producing a Mathematica add-
> on is a cash-cow.
Do you mean addons specifically for Solaris or for MMA in general?
> > > Sticking 'solaris software' into google I findwww.sunfrerware.comis
> > > the top hit - more thanwww.sun.com!!Atnumber 4
> > > ishttp://www.solaris4you.dk/sunsolaris.htmlwhich is a list of free
> > > solaris software.
>
> > Sure, sounds like a good plan to me.
>
> There is a lot to be said for making it very easy for someone to try
> software. Not everyone is going to be too keen to build up special
> tool chains to build a program they are semi interested in.
Well, if it boils to download tarball, punch in "make", come back many
hours later I don't think anybody will really care.
> They are
> much more likely to install it if they see it listed when looking down
> the descriptions on sunfreeware. com.
Sure, installing Sage was always meant to be easy and since there is
only one true Solaris with a rather stable ABI I am confident that
binaries will work on average much better than on some random Linux
distribution. But I guess time will tell.
> Dave
Cheers,
Michael
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
