#3761: [with patch; positive review pending trivial changes] warning when run
sage
binary if the processor instruction set doesn't support everything that was
on the machine where sage was built
---------------------+------------------------------------------------------
Reporter: was | Owner: cwitty
Type: defect | Status: new
Priority: blocker | Milestone: sage-3.2
Component: misc | Resolution:
Keywords: |
---------------------+------------------------------------------------------
Changes (by GeorgSWeber):
* summary: [with patch; needs review] warning when run sage binary if
the processor instruction set doesn't support
everything that was on the machine where sage
was built => [with patch; positive review
pending trivial changes] warning when run sage
binary if the processor instruction set doesn't
support everything that was on the machine
where sage was built
Comment:
Hi William,
>I just read the code and there is exactly *one* place that the flags file
is written
yeah, but that might be too late. Take the following use case:[[BR]]
- unpack a Sage src distribution[[BR]]
- type "make" in the SAGE_ROOT directory[[BR]]
- type "./sage -bdist Test" in that directory[[BR]]
and you get a binary distribution which lacks the flags_file, rendering
its introduction pretty useless.
The whole point is that the "sage-location" script, where the flags file
is written, is never called in the above sequence.
Michaels first post says implicitly he would like to have the "sage-bdist"
script call "sage-location" (say right at its start). His second post says
he would like to have "sage-location" being called somewhere in the build
process started by "make", say in the script "spkg/install" right after
the line "time make -f standard/deps $1" near the end.
IMHO it would be a good idea to do both. I give a positive review to this
ticket provided these two trivial one-liners are added.
(Someone actually should have tested the case of moving such a protected
Sage distro from one Linux system to another Linux system where the new
protection mechanism barfs about missing flags. I can't do it myself
because currently I have only very limited access to some Linux system.
OTOH, the worst thing to happen is that we get "false positives". This is
the current situation, so there ... let's include this code until someone
has a better solution.)
Cheers,[[BR]]
gsw
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/3761#comment:11>
Sage <http://sagemath.org/>
Sage - Open Source Mathematical Software: Building the Car Instead of
Reinventing the Wheel
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-trac" group.
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-trac?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
