On Mon, 29 Sep 2008, mabshoff wrote: > On Sep 27, 8:50 am, Tim Abbott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Sep 26, 3:39 pm, mabshoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi Tim, > > > > For example: Take the FLINT.spkg - ever since we used the patches Tim > > > submitted the spkg was broken twice by either not adjusting the link > > > name for libfint.so or after installing an updated version Sage would > > > > I think this is really the victim of Sage not using the install target > > from the upstream FLINT package. Sage should not need to be > > maintaining code to copy FLINT's libraries into place and install the > > right symbolic links. I believe if we were to automakeify FLINT, the > > install targets would do the right thing with installing symlinks > > appropriately on all platforms supported by libtool. > > I still don't see the benefit of versioned libraries for Sage. And > automakifying FLINT will only make the build process slower and more > complicated. I fixed a gmp linking issue in FLINT on Cygwin trivially > in 3 seconds while a similar fix with link order for LinBox when using > Givaro was way more involved. > <big snip> > Yeah, this is certainly bad, but I also pretty much doubt for most of > the upstream authors pay attention to sonames and preseving upward > compatibility. There was a recent discussion on the mpfr mailing list > where some people complained that backward compatibility was broken > since the mpfr 2.3.1 test suite could no longer link against the mpfr > 2.3.2 library and vice versa and as it turned out that some auxiliary > function had been removed that was never intended to be used. So where > you draw the line? My personal conclusion (and I know I am repeating > myself) is that in Sage's situation we just should not care and not > deal with versioned libraries and be done with it. Whatever upstream > packagers do is orthogonal to that, but any "fix" that will introduce > GNUisms will be removed from the spkg or the updated spkg will not be > merged. > +1 Because sage is self contained it has no need for library versioning. Distro are different, we may let several versions of a library co-exist for that you need versioning. But it's certainly not sage's job to maintain it - in fact if it wasn't a pain you probably want to strip it.
Cheers, Francois --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
