On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 1:14 AM, Dr. David Kirkby <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.
Yes, I think that's a great idea. William -- 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
