On 3 Aug., 08:34, Rob Beezer <[email protected]> wrote: > I just built a clone in about a minute. On a fresh install of > 4.5.2.rc0 created from source. Maybe with a binary install, the docs > need to be built on the first clone?
No, the problem is with relocation, but not with binary installs "per se". Proof: take a new (working ...) source tarball, build Sage by issuing "make". Issuing "make" a second time finishes without doing some real work. Then move this Sage installation to another position in the directory tree (probably you just need to rename the dir that $SAGE_ROOT is). This is the important step, the relocation step! Now, issue "make" again --- and whooops, all of the just newly built docs are considered "dirty" and are going to be built again. This of course hurts almost any binary install, since they virtually never are installed in exactly the same place in the directory tree, where they were built ... (I'd bet that if one were installing a binary install in *exactly* the same location it was originally built, e.g. on a different computer, then sage-clone would be fast, i.e. would not think it had to rebuild the docs!) So the problem lies buried in how the "history/memory" in Sphinx works, i.e. how Sphinx marks its generated files as dirty or not. I fear some type of pickling is done, where the full paths of the documentation files are used. But many people have spent already a substantial amount of time with Sphinx issues, so I am reluctant to even take a closer look. Cheers, Georg -- 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
