#9418: Add GNU patch as a standard package.
----------------------------+-----------------------------------------------
Reporter: drkirkby | Owner: GeorgSWeber
Type: enhancement | Status: needs_review
Priority: major | Milestone: sage-4.6.1
Component: build | Keywords: patch spkg
Author: David Kirkby | Upstream: N/A
Reviewer: | Merged:
Work_issues: |
----------------------------+-----------------------------------------------
Comment(by drkirkby):
Yes, I feel we do need the 64-bit things. Sure, a 32-bit version of patch
would probably do all we want, but the same is true of some other commands
like 'rubiks'. But building them all 64-bit makes it much easier to detect
if there are any 32-bit code by mistake. Knowing that every single library
and ever single binary should be 64-bit makes finding any 32-bit objects
very easy.
Having the option to specify another another 64-bit flag could be useful
in a port. Having spent ages sorting out the mess someone created by
assuming only 64-bit OS X would be supported, and the option would be
{{{-m64}}}, I'm reluctant to inflict such a stupid thing on someone else.
SQLALCHEMY is an oversight. That does need correcting.
I don't think it's safe to assume that just because a package is it's own
upstream, that it will not necessarily ever be patched by someone other
than the developer. Consider genus2reduction. That is currently at patch
level 8, There are no patches, but many times people have changed spkg-
install. What gives you confidence that someone might not need to change a
file in this package? 64-bit support as added to genus2reduction, but on
the Pari package, adding 64-bit supported needed updating of makefiles.
How can you be so confident that a change in genus2reduction would not
need a patch?
To me, removing dependencies will not speed up the build of Sage, but
could potentially lead to problems. Being able to say "you can use patch
for '''any''' package not in the BASE group ({{{prereq}}}, {{{bzip2
etc}}}, {{{dir}}} and {{{sage_scripts}}}), is much easier than documenting
you can use patch on most package, not not A, B, C, D, E ...etc.
I fail to see what is gained by removing what may be a technically
unnecessary dependency, but in practice will have no harmful effect, and
can stop difficult problems occurring.
With few exceptions, where we know there has been issues (like readline),
we normally trust the result of {{{make install}}} and don't actually
check the packages work. But I see nothing wrong with your suggestion. So
I'm find on adding that.
But it's 0037 AM here, and I'm not going to be making any changes for 8
hours at least.
Dave
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/9418#comment:20>
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.
