#6743: cygwin metaticket: port Sage to Microsoft Windows (via Cygwin): stage 1
--
make building Sage automatic
-------------------------------+--------------------------------------------
Reporter: was | Owner: was
Type: enhancement | Status: needs_review
Priority: major | Milestone: sage-5.8
Component: cygwin | Resolution:
Keywords: sd31 sd32 | Work issues:
Report Upstream: N/A | Reviewers: Jean-Pierre Flori, Dmitrii
Pasechnik, Karl-Dieter Crisman, Mike Hansen, William Stein
Authors: | Merged in:
Dependencies: | Stopgaps:
-------------------------------+--------------------------------------------
Changes (by kcrisman):
* status: needs_work => needs_review
* reviewer: => Jean-Pierre Flori, Dmitrii Pasechnik, Karl-Dieter
Crisman, Mike Hansen, William Stein
Comment:
Replying to [comment:155 jpflori]:
> Ok, I think we now only need #13351 to get Sage to quite completely
build, start, correctly work and pass (most of) its doctests.
So ... once that is merged, is this ticket done?
> We should open other tickets to add doc about usage of peflags, use of
the rebasing script (#14031), modifying prereqs and other cosmetic things.
So is there really no prereq modification necessary here? All along, from
when William opened this ticket, the assumption was that we would put
''some'' checking in that a given Cygwin had the proper prereqs to
function. From [http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/wiki/CygwinPort the
wiki]:
{{{
Also installed the lapack packages, the gcc, g++ and gfortran ones, m4,
make, binutils, perl
}}}
We do ask for gcc, m4, make, and perl ahead of time. Does Sage already
throw an error at the start if the lapack stuff isn't there? What about
binutils - is that equivalent to a "standard" dependency?
The top/procps/file thing is presumably separate - we don't need that to
build, just test, correct? Also there was that "custom GSL" remark, but
perhaps that wasn't an issue.
One reason I am a little scared about this is the tendency of Sage to
creep beyond the latest efforts here. So I want to hesitate to close this
until we are really sure we are "state-of-the-art". I wish we could
acquire a Cygwin buildbot.
Anyway, all that to say that I should have a little time for this in the
next week and a half to help test some of the many many fixes you have
contributed - amazing stuff. Thank you to Dima so much for picking up a
lot of my slack on this the past few months.
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/6743#comment:160>
Sage <http://www.sagemath.org>
Sage: Creating a Viable Open Source Alternative to Magma, Maple, Mathematica,
and MATLAB
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-trac" 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 http://groups.google.com/group/sage-trac?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
