On 06/ 1/10 09:09 AM, William Stein wrote:
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
In which case, should I call the package fortran-4.3.2, to reflect the fact it
has gfortran 4.3.2 binaries? Then others add .p0, .p1 etc later? That would seem
most logical if all the binaries are for 4.3.2, which appears to be the case for
those that I found, though I'd need to double-check that.
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
