On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 7:15 AM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > Well Sage is a bit different than this because you'd want the full set >> > of tools for easy porting of SPKGs -- bash, tar, make, gcc, ... >> >> well, that's if you want to do Sage development, isn't it? >> (I'd be surprised if Sage needs a gcc compiler for a binary install) > > Well, the installation of optional SPKGs currently relies on the > availability of a compiler. If you are happy with loosing optional SPKGs > then you are right. > > In theory one could introduce the concept of "binary SPKGs" (though I'd > take a hard look at alternative, pre-written distribution mechanisms > first). > > Dag Sverre In addition, Cython doesn't work at all without a compiler. It's very reasonable that Sage end users would use Cython with Sage, and for this they need a compiler. The tight integration of Sage and Cython (e.g., %cython mode in the notebook) is one of the "killer features" of Sage, and it vanishes without a C compiler. We didn't used to ship GCC (or other tools) with Sage (via Cygwin) for Windows, though maybe we should have. We just shipped some relevant DLL's. There are some weird and very painful Windows-inherited relocation issues with Cygwin and dynamic loading of shared object libraries, by the way, which do make things hard. Maybe they aren't as bad these days (I don't know). Anyway, Dima, thanks for sorting my position that a Cygwin port of Sage would be very valuable indeed! -- 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 URL: http://www.sagemath.org
