Yes, though having conflicting cxx11 ABIs makes it pretty useless for development as well.
On Saturday, May 21, 2016 at 10:38:17 AM UTC+2, Dima Pasechnik wrote: > > meaning that the binaries produced this way would probably be useless for > development? > (at least if the system gcc toolchain is not installed)... > > On Friday, May 20, 2016 at 9:53:37 PM UTC+1, Volker Braun wrote: >> >> True. In fact, SAGE_INSTALL_GCC=yes is broken on every platform that uses >> the new cxx11 ABI. Yay... >> >> For now I'll just not set SAGE_INSTALL_GCC on the buildbot binaries... >> >> >> On Wednesday, May 18, 2016 at 3:27:54 AM UTC+2, Nils Bruin wrote: >>> >>> I noticed that the current binary tarball: >>> >>> sage-7.2-Fedora_23-x86_64.tar.bz2 >>> >>> is quite a bit smaller than the other ones. In fact, if I unpack it and >>> try to run it, it seems that the whole sage library is missing. The >>> sage-7.1-Fedora tarball seems OK. >>> Did something go wrong in building the tarball? Do we check somewhere if >>> the tarball building is successful? >>> >> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-support" 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-support. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
