On Jul 20, 11:20 am, "Ondrej Certik" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 6:38 PM, mabshoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<SNIP>
Hi Ondrej,
> > But even then it will only be a question of time until something else
> > blows up. That is why I strictly refuse to support Sage being used in
> > that way in the first place.
>
> Sage should use its own versions of libraries for the reasons you
> stated. One exception could be Python,
> e.g. there could be an easy way to compile Sage with the systemwide
> python, because (imho) Python doesn't change that much, so it could
> work in most cases. It works even now.
Nope, it does not work for example on OSX. With a python 2.5.2 on
Linux x86 and x86 it should mostly work, but on Linux Itanium it does
not work since in the official 2.5.2 readline is busted. On Solaris
and OSX there is also the multilib issue, i.e. 32 vs. 64 bit are
supported on the same machine. So I disagree that it mostly works and
I consider it a bad, bad idea to even give the user some simple option
to make Sage build with the system python. It is trivial to do if you
know your way around the Sage build system, but that actually means
that one can likely fix issues oneself like in your case. Everybody
else just has to play by the rules.
And I won't post the obvious one line diff to make Sage with system
python at build time work. If you need to ask you shouldn't play with
something that could cause endless trouble :p
> As chatted on IRC, the LD_LIBRARY_PATH problem *might* get fixed using:
>
> http://packages.debian.org/sid/chrpath
Yes, this certainly offers possibilities.
> And the other PATH stuff are fixable too.
>
> Ondrej
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
