#9201: Add missing R modules and make `spkg-check` pass on Solaris
-----------------------+----------------------------------------------------
Reporter: mpatel | Owner: drkirkby
Type: defect | Status: new
Priority: major | Milestone:
Component: solaris | Keywords:
Author: | Upstream: N/A
Reviewer: | Merged:
Work_issues: |
-----------------------+----------------------------------------------------
Comment(by drkirkby):
I think we also need a doctest which can detect if these parts of R are
functional. It is a bit poor if Sage passes all the doc tests, while 6
packages have not built.
I'm puzzled why libgcc_s.so.1 is not found. I would expect a failure to
find that library to cause huge chunks of Sage to be non-functional. It is
the gcc library, which is searched for with LD_LIBRARY_PATH:
{{{
kir...@t2:[~] $ ls -l /usr/local/gcc-4.4.1-sun-linker/lib/libgcc_s.so.1
-rw-r--r-- 1 nobody nobody 259816 Aug 3 2009 /usr/local/gcc-4.4.1
-sun-linker/lib/libgcc_s.so.1
kir...@t2:[~] $ echo $LD_LIBRARY_PATH
/usr/local/gcc-4.4.1-sun-linker/lib:/usr/local/gcc-4.4.1-sun-
linker/lib/sparcv9:/usr/local/lib
}}}
I've never written a doc test, and don't know R at all, but I think that
each module we build should be tested.
Dave
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/9201#comment:1>
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 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.
