Hi, On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 8:44 PM, William Stein <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 5:09 PM, Ondrej Certik <[email protected]> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> we are revisiting prerequisites for FEMhub (currently based on the >> Sage system) and we are thinking of doing the following changes: >> >> * make Python a build dependency (Python will still be built and used >> as the python in FEMhub) > > So there has to be a system-wide Python, but you'll still build your > own. I personally > think that is a great idea. > >> * make bzip2 a build dependency (I checked and it seems to be on the >> Mac by default now too) > > Sage has this as a dependency for at least two reasons: > > (1) to get the bunzip2 binary, so we can extract spkg's. > > (2) for libbz2 and corresponding header files, so that we get the > bz2 Python module, which we use for compressing our "sobj" files > (which are just bz2 compressed Python pickles).
Yes, > > I don't know of any other way in which we use bzip2. For FEMHUB (2) > might not matter. I suspect regarding (1) that the bunzip2 is a very > reasonable prerequisite to assume is installed on your user's > computers. The only question that I am actually asking is whether: a) bzip2 should be shipped and build with Sage or b) bzip2 should be a prerequisite just like m4/gcc/perl In either case, both 1) and 2) would work. Unless I am missing something. > >> * create a simple (order matters) list with packages to be installed, >> and the Python build system would install it one by one (sequentially) >> using "femhub -i". > > This would avoid having to use the makefile system we use. We can't > do this with Sage because it would make inplace upgrades of Sage more > difficult, right? Maybe you don't support this with FEMHUB, so it > doesn't matter? Yes, we don't support this. > > I actually wrote the first version of the Sage build system entirely > to support in-place upgrades, because David Kohel in Australia had > very limited bandwidth. (It used to be really bad in Australia.) I actually totally forgot about this possibility. I guess that in principle the (Python based) buildsystem can support this too somehow, but it would make it more complex, that's for sure. > >> * simplify spkg/base, remove spkg/install, spkg/default/dep > > That's basically the previous step. > >> So I wanted to ask, if bzip2 should still be shipped with Sage, or if >> it can be made a prerequisite, just like m4, gcc and perl. > > We will continue to ship it with Sage. However, I can certainly see > you removing it from FEMHUB. Originally I wanted to have it so that Sage can use it too, but as I see it now, here is my plan: * remove the Sage buildsystem completely (all makefiles, install, dep), as well as the spkg/base dir * keep sage-spkg and sage-env, possibly modify it so that it still works (maybe some more scripts need to be kept) * ./femhub (the equivalent of ./sage) would call either the systemwide Python (during installation) or the builtin Python (after installation) * write a Python based buildsystem that uses sage-spkg to install a package So the only thing that will remain compatible with Sage are the actual packages, so if I provide the list of packages in Sage instead, it should build Sage just fine. After this is done, I'll see how it goes (and if we like it) and we can think again, if it's possible to extend it so that it could be used in Sage itself. If not, I think it will not be a problem for us to maintain this buildsystem separately. Ondrej -- 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
