On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 11:58 AM, François Bissey <[email protected]> wrote: > On 03/11/16 07:54, Jeroen Demeyer wrote: >> >> On 2016-03-10 18:19, William Stein wrote: >>> >>> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 9:10 AM, Jeroen Demeyer >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> After a quick look at conda, one major difference is that its focus is >>>> really on binary packages. It might not be easy to support the Sage >>>> "build >>>> from source" model in conda. >>> >>> >>> This change in focus could be a big plus. >> >> >> We really should not change this focus, Sage should always support >> building from source. Reasons: >> 1) easily allow development on Sage packages >> 2) performance (binaries don't know which SSE/AVX instructions your >> processor has) >> 3) portability (with binaries, you are always limited to the platforms >> that you built binaries for) >> > > conda is married to the x86(_64) architecture. No support for power for > you.
or ARM? If so, that's a serious drawback. > There is probably no reason why it is so apart from it being the dominant > market. The installer is x86 only and I haven't seen the > sources anywhere _I_ looked. Are these the sources? https://github.com/conda > Francois > > > -- > 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.
