#13325: eclib does not build on Cygwin
------------------------------------------------------------+---------------
Reporter: jpflori | Owner:
tbd
Type: defect | Status:
needs_review
Priority: major | Milestone:
sage-5.3
Component: cygwin | Resolution:
Keywords: eclib spkg cygwin | Work issues:
Report Upstream: Workaround found; Bug reported upstream. | Reviewers:
Authors: Jean-Pierre Flori | Merged in:
Dependencies: #13333 | Stopgaps:
------------------------------------------------------------+---------------
Comment (by jpflori):
Replying to [comment:49 cremona]:
> To answer your (reasonable) questions: yes, the intention is that
binaries which are only used for testing are in tests, whle ones which
people might actually want to run are in progs. It's not an absolute
distinction: one of the "tests" is a perfectly good interactive program
which prompts for an elliptic curve and outputs its conductor; but these
days I would not expect anyone to use this program for that as they can
get conductors from Sage (or Magma or pari), so it has the status of a
test that the conductor-computing code (which definitely is used elsewhere
in the library) is correct.
I see, thanks for the explanation.
>
> Secondly, in progs, the only program used in Sage is mwrank; there are
some others here which could easily be used in Sage, though wrapping the
relavant library functions would be better. But anyone using eclib
outside of Sage (including me, installing it on various machines) needs
more than that, and these other prgrams are in progs.
About the fact that only mwrank is installed in Sage, after thinking a
little bit about that, I'm not convinced anymore that providing an option
in your build system only to please Sage is really relevant.
I mean that if at some point someone decides to integrate more of them,
you'll have to modify your build system once more.
Whereas having everything installed by default is not so painful, that's
just a few more kB which are insignificant in comparison with Sage's
current size.
>
> Inconsistencies are no great surprise given that I completely rewrote
this back in March/April, and (as you have observed) changed my mind a bit
since then as to what should go where. I'll put in a test for h1degphi
(though this is actually testing some functionality which I no longer use
so I might decide to remove it instead). I'll also put in a test for d2.
I think that the ones listed in extra_progs are the test programs which I
build but do not yet have test data for; I will sort that out. [Note
that until I started repackaging this code for Sage back in 2007 I did not
have any standard test data at all; this is one good habit Sage has
taught me!]
About the tests, it might be a good idea to actually test that the output
of diff is empty (with wc or something like that) and error out if its
not.
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/13325#comment:50>
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.
