On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 2:05 PM, mmarco <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.
It doesn't matter -- just swap 32 and 64 bit... > 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. I personally don't care about anything but 64 bit anymore for Sage. -- William > > 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]> 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]. >> > 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. >> >> >> >> -- >> 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. -- 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.
