Hi Erik, On 2017-02-23, Erik Bray <[email protected]> wrote: > IMHO building Sage should not just forge ahead with building its own > gcc without asking. I think it's bad enough that it's a package at > all, but as long as it is it should be strictly optional, and if the > version check fails for gcc/gfortran the build should just refuse to > continue (i.e. `./configure` would exit with an error) providing > information on what version checks were performed, what failed, and > mention that if desired sage can be built --with-gcc or something in > which case it will add gcc to the build.
Sounds like a good idea to me. And could perhaps be generalised towards a proper modularisation of Sage. In the sense of: - If Sage is known to work with a system-wide installation of something (such as: gcc, blas, r [just to give an example, I don't know if Sage can really work with a system-wide blas or r]), then the default should be to use it. - ./configure tests if these modules are installed in an appropriate version. If an appropriate version is not installed, it fails with an error and tells the user how to install the stuff. - The user has the possibility to force Sage to build its own modules. Say, by doing `./configure --build="gcc r"`, Sage would build both gcc and r (regardless whether they are available on the machine), but would still use the existing blas. Of course, the error message mentioned in the previous point should tell about the `--build` option. Best regards, Simon -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-release" 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-release. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
