On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 12:49 AM, Dr. David Kirkby <[email protected]> wrote: > The fortran package in Sage is really weird. > > 1) The 'src' directory does not contain unchanged upstream code, but has a > command called 'sage_fortran' burried well down in the directory structure, > which is a binary of g95, version 4.0.3 > > 2) But at the top level there is another command called 'sage_fortran' which > is a perl script. > > 3) Most packages, when they get patched, use the convention of adding .p0, > .p1, .p2 ...etc to the package number. The 'fortran' package however seems > to use that convention (SPKG.txt starts at patch level 8), but then switched > to using the date. The SPKG.txt shows: > > > === fortran-20100428 Harold Gutch, 28th Apri 2010) === > * trac 8715 -- fortran-20100118 ignores SAGE_FORTRAN on Linux > > === fortran-20100117 (William Stein, Jan 17, 2010) === > * Removed the two linux g95 binaries, and *require* that gfortran be > installed > on Linux. > > === fortran-20071120.p8 (William Stein Sept 24 2009) === > * improved 64-bit OS X 10.6 detection > * The g95 binaries were downloaded from the very nice site: > http://ftp.g95.org/ > * I changed the name of the executable in the g95-install/bin/ > directory to sage_fortran in each case. > > I can see a point of coding a date if its a CVS snapshot, but it's not > obvious to me why William changed from fortran-20071120.p8 to > fortran-20100428. > > As far as I can see, there appears to be version 4.0.3 of g95 and version > 4.3.2 of gfortran buried down somewhere in the directory structure. Do we > really need both g95 and gfortran? If not, should the older 'g95' be > removed? > > So what name should I used if I update this? Some of the many possible > options might be: > > 1) If 'g95' could be removed, call the package fortran-4.2.3, since I > believe the binaries are all version 4.2.3. Later we append .p0, .p1 etc as > updates are made.
g95 can be removed. It hasn't because nobody has got around to it. The only binaries that matter are the gfortran ones for OS X. -- William > > 2) If 'g95' can't be removed, so there must remain a mixture of g95 4.0.3 > and gfortran 4.2.3, we call the fortran package fortran-1.0. Then we append > .p0, .p1 etc in future. > > 3) I use the date, as has been recently done, in contravention of the > convention in the developers guide. (In which case the developers guide > should be updated to reflect the 'fortran' package uses a totally different > convention). > > 4) Use a pseudo-random number generator to pick a version for the package! > > 5) Some other convention. > > To me, (1) or (2) seems most logical. > > Thoughts? > > Dave > > > -- > To post to this group, send an email to [email protected] > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to > [email protected] > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel > URL: http://www.sagemath.org > -- William Stein Professor of Mathematics University of Washington http://wstein.org -- To post to this group, send an email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URL: http://www.sagemath.org
