In the cases mentioned in the ticket, the situation is the opposite of what 
you describe: they work well(ish) on 64 bits, but are somehow broken on 32 
bits. Hence the question is wether we should consider i386 to be "legacy" 
or "deprecated". In fact, I think that in the long run this will happen, 
the question is when.

El martes, 29 de diciembre de 2015, 20:46:46 (UTC+1), William escribió:
>
> On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 10:22 AM, mmarco <[email protected] <javascript:>> 
> wrote: 
> > In #19781 there are some issues with several optional packages that 
> don't 
> > build or work correctly on 32 bits. Volker points that the lack of 
> > availability of 32 bits platforms make them harder to test and fix. So, 
> > should we change the policy about it? 
> > 
> > Personally I think that intel 32 bits should still be a supported 
> > architecture (maybe some time from now it shall be completely 
> deprecated, 
> > but i don't think we are there yet). In the meantime, i don't think 
> there is 
> > a big problem in moving these packages from optional to experimental. 
> But 
> > that is just my opinion, I think it is worth discussing. 
> > 
> > So, what do you think? 
>
> I don't like this, unless nobody has any time to do anything right.  I 
> guess that is likely.  Moving them to experimental, or just deleting 
> them is certainly the minimal amount of work possible. 
>
> It would be much better to have a some sort of obvious explicit 
> "32-bit only" designator for a package.  If the package is called 
> foo-32bit (say) and you do 
>
>    sage -i foo-32bit 
>
> on a 64-bit platform, it fails immediately saying "this package is 
> only available on 32-bit platforms.  If you would like to port it to 
> support 64-bit platforms, please ..." 
>
> Why designate something as "totally and likely broken" (=experimental) 
> when it works well and is tested on 32-bit?   (Except that maybe none 
> of our optional packages work well and are tested; I'm not sure what 
> the situation is now.) 
>
>  -- William 
>
>
>
> > 
> > -- 
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
> Groups 
> > "sage-devel" group. 
> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
> an 
> > email to [email protected] <javascript:>. 
> > To post to this group, send email to [email protected] 
> <javascript:>. 
> > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. 
> > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. 
>
>
>
> -- 
> William (http://wstein.org) 
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to