#9026: METATICKET Issues preventing 64-bit builds on various flavors of Solaris.
------------------------+---------------------------------------------------
Reporter: drkirkby | Owner: drkirkby
Type: defect | Status: new
Priority: major | Milestone: sage-4.5.2
Component: solaris | Keywords:
Author: | Upstream: N/A
Reviewer: | Merged:
Work_issues: |
------------------------+---------------------------------------------------
Old description:
> The following is list of the issues that are currently preventing Sage
> build on either
>
> * !OpenSolaris (aka Solaris 11) on Intel/AMD x64. (e.g. 'disk')
> * Solaris 10 on Intel/AMD (e.g. 'fulva')
> * Solaris 10 on SPARC (e.g. 't2')
>
> The list can be added as new problems are found, making what William
> calls a 'metaticket'
>
> Please put
> * "yes" if the trac ticket is known, or one might reasonably expect it
> to cause a problem on a particular platform.
> * "no" if one knows the problem does not exist on that platform, or one
> reasonably expect it will not be an issue.
> * "unknown" if one can not determine if it will be an issue.
>
> Although !OpenSolaris can run on the SPARC platform, very few people run
> it, so there is little to be gained by tracking issues on that platform.
> (David Kirkby does not have !OpenSolaris installed on any of his SPARC
> systems)
>
> ||'''Trac'''||'''Title'''||'''S10 SPARC'''||'''S10 x64'''||
> '''!OpenSolaris x64'''||'''Notes'''||
> ||#7861||pynac not building on Open Solaris x64 (32-bit/64-bit
> mixup)||unknown||unknown||yes||'''Needs review'''||
> ||#7864||libfplll tries to link 64-bit objects to 32-bit
> libstdc++.so||unknown||unknown||yes||'''Needs review'''||
> ||#7982||sage_fortran is not working properly on Open Solaris x64 in 64
> bit mode.||yes||yes||yes||||
> ||#8086||numpy fails to build on Open Solaris x64 - 32 / 64-bit
> mixup||unknown||unknown||yes||'''Needs review'''||
> ||#8089||ecl 9.10.2-20091105cvs.p1 fails to build on Open Solaris
> x64||unknown||unknown||yes||||
> ||#9008||Update zlib to latest upstream, and clean up spkg-
> install||yes||unknown||yes||||
> ||#9009||Mercurial is not building 64-bit with !OpenSolaris with
> SAGE64=yes.||yes||yes||yes||||
> ||#9022||python fails to build _socket on !OpenSolaris x64, so ipython
> fails to build.||unknown||unknown||yes||||
> ||#9023||ghmm needs compiler flag -m64 when SAGE64 is set to
> "yes"||yes||yes||yes||||
> ||#9024||tachyon is buiding 32-bit on !OpenSolaris x64 even when SAGE64
> is set to "yes"||yes||yes||yes||||
> ||#9025||PALP is building 32-bit on !OpenSolaris - probably other
> platforms too.||yes||yes||yes||||
> ||#9029||sympow is buiding 32-bit on !OpenSolaris x64 even when SAGE64 is
> set to "yes"||yes||yes||yes||||
> ||#9030||rubiks is building part 32-bit and part 64-bit on !OpenSolaris
> x64.||yes||yes||yes||||
> ||#9033||Singular does not try to build 64-bit on !OpenSolaris
> x64||yes||yes||yes||Should be fixed by updated Singular at #8059||
> ||#9034||flintqs builds as 32-bit despite SAGE64=yes on !OpenSolaris
> x64||yes||yes||yes||Positive review||
> ||#9037||pynac fails to build on 64-bit !OpenSolaris
> x64.||yes||yes||yes||Pynac 0.2 now in Sage. That must be fixed - see
> #8903 too||
> ||#9041||python fails to build _socket on !OpenSolaris x64, so pygments
> fails to build.||unknown||unknown||yes||||
> ||#9042||Cython fails to build on !OpenSolaris
> x64||unknown||unknown||yes||||
> ||#9043||lcalc failing to build on !OpenSolaris x64.||yes||yes||yes||||
> ||#9040||fatal relocation error installing R on
> !OpenSolaris||unknown||unknown||yes||We many need to build R with
> !SunStudio on !OpenSolaris or Solaris 10 on x64||
> ||#9097||c_lib in Sage library fails to build on !OpenSolaris
> x64||unknown||unknown||yes||||
> ||#9098||gap buillds 32-bit on !OpenSolaris when
> SAGE64=yes||yes||yes||yes||||
> ||#9099||Maxima fails to build on !OpenSolaris x64, though ECL
> does.||unknown||unknown||yes||||
> ||#9100||scipy is probably building part 32-bit on !OpenSolaris x64 when
> SAGE64=yes||unknown||unknown||yes||This is odd - see trac ticket||
> ||#9101||linbox reports "ERROR: BLAS not found!" on Solaris 10 SPARC
> (64-bit build).||yes||unknown||no||It should use ATLAS, which mis-
> compiled as 32-bit||
> ||#9397||Resolve corrupted patches to permit Singular to build on Solaris
> x86/x64||no||yes||yes||Should be fixed by update of Singular at #8059 ||
> ||#9399||Remove Sun-specific junk in
> rings/finite_rings/stdint.h||no||yes||yes||||
> ||#9358||zn_poly passes all tests on on Solaris 10 64-bit SPARC, but
> fails to install||no||yes||yes||||
New description:
The following is list of the issues that are currently preventing Sage
build on either
* !OpenSolaris (aka Solaris 11) on Intel/AMD x64. (e.g. 'disk')
* Solaris 10 on Intel/AMD (e.g. 'fulva')
* Solaris 10 on SPARC (e.g. 't2')
The list can be added as new problems are found, making what William calls
a 'metaticket'
Please put
* "yes" if the trac ticket is known, or one might reasonably expect it to
cause a problem on a particular platform.
* "no" if one knows the problem does not exist on that platform, or one
reasonably expect it will not be an issue.
* "unknown" if one can not determine if it will be an issue.
Although !OpenSolaris can run on the SPARC platform, very few people run
it, so there is little to be gained by tracking issues on that platform.
(David Kirkby does not have !OpenSolaris installed on any of his SPARC
systems)
||'''Trac'''||'''Title'''||'''S10 SPARC'''||'''S10 x64'''||
'''!OpenSolaris x64'''||'''Notes'''||
||#7861||pynac not building on Open Solaris x64 (32-bit/64-bit
mixup)||unknown||unknown||yes||'''Needs review'''||
||#7864||libfplll tries to link 64-bit objects to 32-bit
libstdc++.so||unknown||unknown||yes||'''Needs review'''||
||#7982||sage_fortran is not working properly on Open Solaris x64 in 64
bit mode.||yes||yes||yes||||
||#8086||numpy fails to build on Open Solaris x64 - 32 / 64-bit
mixup||unknown||unknown||yes||'''Needs review'''||
||#8089||ecl 9.10.2-20091105cvs.p1 fails to build on Open Solaris
x64||unknown||unknown||yes||||
||#9008||Update zlib to latest upstream, and clean up spkg-
install||yes||unknown||yes||||
||#9009||Mercurial is not building 64-bit with !OpenSolaris with
SAGE64=yes.||yes||yes||yes||||
||#9022||python fails to build _socket on !OpenSolaris x64, so ipython
fails to build.||unknown||unknown||yes||||
||#9023||ghmm needs compiler flag -m64 when SAGE64 is set to
"yes"||yes||yes||yes||||
||#9024||tachyon is buiding 32-bit on !OpenSolaris x64 even when SAGE64 is
set to "yes"||yes||yes||yes||||
||#9025||PALP is building 32-bit on !OpenSolaris - probably other
platforms too.||yes||yes||yes||||
||#9029||sympow is buiding 32-bit on !OpenSolaris x64 even when SAGE64 is
set to "yes"||yes||yes||yes||||
||#9030||rubiks is building part 32-bit and part 64-bit on !OpenSolaris
x64.||yes||yes||yes||||
||#9033||Singular does not try to build 64-bit on !OpenSolaris
x64||yes||yes||yes||Should be fixed by updated Singular at #8059||
||#9034||flintqs builds as 32-bit despite SAGE64=yes on !OpenSolaris
x64||yes||yes||yes||Positive review||
||#9037||pynac fails to build on 64-bit !OpenSolaris
x64.||yes||yes||yes||Pynac 0.2 now in Sage. That must be fixed - see #8903
too||
||#9041||python fails to build _socket on !OpenSolaris x64, so pygments
fails to build.||unknown||unknown||yes||||
||#9042||Cython fails to build on !OpenSolaris
x64||unknown||unknown||yes||||
||#9043||lcalc failing to build on !OpenSolaris x64.||yes||yes||yes||||
||#9040||fatal relocation error installing R on
!OpenSolaris||unknown||unknown||yes||We many need to build R with
!SunStudio on !OpenSolaris or Solaris 10 on x64||
||#9097||c_lib in Sage library fails to build on !OpenSolaris
x64||unknown||unknown||yes||||
||#9098||gap buillds 32-bit on !OpenSolaris when
SAGE64=yes||yes||yes||yes||||
||#9099||Maxima fails to build on !OpenSolaris x64, though ECL
does.||unknown||unknown||yes||||
||#9100||scipy is probably building part 32-bit on !OpenSolaris x64 when
SAGE64=yes||unknown||unknown||yes||This is odd - see trac ticket||
||#9101||linbox reports "ERROR: BLAS not found!" on Solaris 10 SPARC
(64-bit build).||yes||unknown||no||It should use ATLAS, which mis-compiled
as 32-bit||
||#9358||zn_poly passes all tests on on Solaris 10 64-bit SPARC, but fails
to install||no||yes||yes||||
||#9397||Resolve corrupted patches to permit Singular to build on Solaris
x86/x64||yes||unknown||no||Should be fixed by update of Singular at #8059
||
||#9399||Remove Sun-specific junk in
rings/finite_rings/stdint.h||no||yes||yes||||
--
Comment(by drkirkby):
John,
I see you updated the table to include #9358. Note however note the
comments above.
Please put
* "yes" if the trac ticket is known, or one might reasonably expect it
to cause a problem on a particular platform.
* "no" if one knows the problem does not exist on that platform, or
one reasonably expect it will not be an issue.
* "unknown" if one can not determine if it will be an issue.
So the znpoly issue should have a "yes" in the first column. I've also
tried to keep them in order of trac number, though that's not a big deal.
Perhaps changing "yes" -> Bug and No->OK might be sensible, as I can see
this could be confusing. That would be trivial to change with a sed
script. What do you think of that, or can you think of a better, less
confusing solution?
Dave
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/9026#comment:28>
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.
