On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 12:43 PM, PJ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Today in the Fedora Linux list, a person asked if there was a Fedora
> project to build & distribute SAGE. He spoke with such enthusiasm
> about SAGE that I became interested to see what it does and I'm
> compiling it right now (I figure there's no point in trying to package
> it for Fedora if I can't compile it). I didn't read your README all
> the way through before the make started--then I did. Its been going
> about 1 hour so far. Holy cow. The good news is that all of the
> prerequisites seem to be available and were already installed in my
> system. (Without a "configure" script to scan for prereqs and refuse
> to build without them, I'm not entirely sure.)
It runs a configure process implicitly as part of the first package
it installs and will refuse to continue if you don't have the prerequisites.
>
> If there is an effort to package SAGE for Fedora, please let me know.
> I don't find one after some searching. If anybody has a spec file to
There's a lot of work going into packaging sage for Debian. See e.g.,
http://groups.google.com/group/debian-sage
> build an RPM for current SAGE, I'd appreciate seeing it. Or if you
> have a Debian package configure file, I think I could convert. The
> only lead I've found so far is that PCLinuxOS, which is an RPM based
> distribution, offers version 2.0.2 of SAGE in rpm format. I've been
> studying that spec file and it appears to me that some changes in the
> build/install procedure have changed in SAGE itself, at lest if I'm
> understanding the SAGE README.txt file. PCLinuxOS packaging is enough
> different from Fedora that I'll wrestle with the details.
>
> The build & install procedure for SAGE 3.0.1 is different from almost
> all GNU software in Fedora, where you type "configure ..." "make" and
> "make install DESTDIR=xxx" in a "build root" environment.
>
> I'm curious about a few things in particular.
>
> 1. About the lack of "make install". Is it correct that after running
> "make", then I can run
>
> $ sage -bdist 3.0.1
>
> and the result that gets deposited in "dist" is a complete, self
> contained set of files that includes everything needed to run SAGE and
> nothing else? (no source code, etc?). That resulting directory
> "dist" can be relocated anywhere and SAGE will still run?
Yes.
>
> 2. What does SAGE's build do if it can't find something it wants, such
> as a python devel package or McCauley2? Don't you think a
> "configure" script for SAGE would be a good idea? The build takes so
> long, it seems like a waste that it doesn't check development
> libraries at the start and report back on what it can/can't find.
The only prerequisites to build/install/use Sage are
gcc, g++, make, m4, perl, ranlib, and tar
These are checked when Sage first starts building.
> I
> "thought" I had the prerequisites because I have everything mentioned
> in the README. However, the PCLinuxOS setup has several development
> libraries I don't think I have. Here's a list of some build
> requirements that they list:
>
> BuildRequires: python-scons
> BuildRequires: libgfortran
> BuildRequires: ntl-devel
> BuildRequires: libgd-devel
> BuildRequires: libopencdk-develsage-2.9.3-2gri65072007.src.rpm
> BuildRequires: libgpg-error-devel
> BuildRequires: libgcrypt-devel
> BuildRequires: libgnutls-devel
> BuildRequires: gnutls
> BuildRequires: scons
> BuildRequires: libsqlite3_0-devel
> BuildRequires: mercurial
> BuildRequires: libfac
> BuildRequires: clisp
> BuildRequires: python-gd
> BuildRequires: IPython
> BuildRequires: R-base
>
> They have R in the list. That's cool, I like R! But I can't say for
> sure
Sage includes R. You're might be building R right now.
> 3. I do not understand the README comment 9, on installing GAP.
That is not a comment on installing GAP but on installing the optional
GAP database package.
> Once
> SAGE is installed from RPM, users won't have authority to do this for
> themselves, so I better try to take care of it.
It's far less necessary than we suggest in 9. It used to be a very important
thing to do when most Sage users were number theorists. Now I bet
at most 0.1% of Sage users actually install that optional database. In fact,
I don't. We should change the README.txt.
> I suppose you want
> those things packaged as optional additional components for the SAGE
> program? Or do you rather have them in the one-giant-rpm file? I
> understand
>
> $ ./sage -optional
>
> I don't understand the instructions "then installing (with ./sage -i)
> the package whose name
> begins with database_gap. "
>
> I suppose I mean to say, is there a way I can just download those
> additional database files by http or ftp and then install them without
> being interactive with SAGE.
>
I wouldn't worry about optional stuff for now.
> And, I suppose most importantly, if I run "sage -bdist 3.0.1", will
> those optional database files be included?
Yes.
>
> 4. Another packaging problem is that the name "sage" is already
> claimed in Fedora by an OpenGL library, and I expect they won't
> approve a package called SAGE. I was wondering if you support /oppose
> a name like "sagemath".
Fine with me.
-- William
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/sage-support
URLs: http://www.sagemath.org
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
