Re: [sage-devel] #32532 - removing gcc and gfortran spkgs

2021-09-23 Thread Matthias Koeppe
On Thursday, September 23, 2021 at 10:17:13 PM UTC-7 François Bissey wrote: > By the way switching to clang+gfortran-spkg over the gcc-spkg shaved 3 > hours of building time of vanilla sage on my previous macbook. That was > what took the most time to build by a very wide margin. > Sure,

Re: [sage-devel] #32532 - removing gcc and gfortran spkgs

2021-09-23 Thread Matthias Koeppe
On Thursday, September 23, 2021 at 9:54:19 PM UTC-7 wst...@gmail.com wrote: > Since Fortran is pretty central to this discussion, any chance you > could give a quick overview of the extent to which Sage depends on > Fortran in 2021? No big surprises: It comes in from openblas, numpy, scipy;

Re: [sage-devel] #32532 - removing gcc and gfortran spkgs

2021-09-23 Thread François Bissey
I have at least one close user/tester that builds sage-on-gentoo on a gentoo prefix (on a debian machine I think). Pretty much every beta/rc release get built and tested. I used to work on gentoo-prefix on OS X for a while. I should try it again someday but I don’t feel like my little macbook

Re: [sage-devel] Re: #32532 - removing gcc and gfortran spkgs

2021-09-23 Thread Matthias Koeppe
On Thursday, September 23, 2021 at 9:09:45 PM UTC-7 Michael Orlitzky wrote: > Item #2 happened, incidentally, only because we've copy & pasted so > many packages into sage pretending to be a linux distribution. > Eliminating that problem altogether begins right here, at the root of > the

Re: [sage-devel] #32532 - removing gcc and gfortran spkgs

2021-09-23 Thread William Stein
Hi Matthias, Since Fortran is pretty central to this discussion, any chance you could give a quick overview of the extent to which Sage depends on Fortran in 2021? I was reading about pyodide [1] recently and they had to work very hard to build scipy for webassembly without using Fortran. I

Re: [sage-devel] #32532 - removing gcc and gfortran spkgs

2021-09-23 Thread Matthias Koeppe
On Thursday, September 23, 2021 at 9:41:56 PM UTC-7 jus...@mac.com wrote: > I think my only concern with this is (g)fortran. The C/C++ compiler > situation seems pretty stable, but doesn’t the fortran problem still exist? > I do not use any package managers on my systems, so home-brew and the

Re: [sage-devel] #32532 - removing gcc and gfortran spkgs

2021-09-23 Thread 'Justin C. Walker' via sage-devel
I think my only concern with this is (g)fortran. The C/C++ compiler situation seems pretty stable, but doesn’t the fortran problem still exist? I do not use any package managers on my systems, so home-brew and the like aren’t useful to me. > On Sep 23, 2021, at 15:17 , Dima Pasechnik

Re: [sage-devel] Re: #32532 - removing gcc and gfortran spkgs

2021-09-23 Thread Michael Orlitzky
On Thu, 2021-09-23 at 21:18 -0700, Matthias Koeppe wrote: > On Thursday, September 23, 2021 at 7:48:35 PM UTC-7 Michael Orlitzky wrote: > > > You could tar up an entire Gentoo system with > > sage installed and it would probably take up less space than our > > existing binaries. > > > >

Re: [sage-devel] Re: #32532 - removing gcc and gfortran spkgs

2021-09-23 Thread Matthias Koeppe
On Thursday, September 23, 2021 at 9:28:36 PM UTC-7 Michael Orlitzky wrote: > On Thu, 2021-09-23 at 21:10 -0700, Matthias Koeppe wrote: > > Item 7 of my list, pip-installability, is definitely not addressed by > any > > of these. From a Python dev viewpoint, a project that is not > >

Re: [sage-devel] Re: #32532 - removing gcc and gfortran spkgs

2021-09-23 Thread Michael Orlitzky
On Thu, 2021-09-23 at 21:10 -0700, Matthias Koeppe wrote: > On Thursday, September 23, 2021 at 7:48:35 PM UTC-7 Michael Orlitzky wrote: > > > 2, 4, 6, and 7 are addressed by Conda, Nix, Guix, Homebrew, or even > > Gentoo Prefix. > > > > Item 7 of my list, pip-installability, is definitely not

Re: [sage-devel] Re: #32532 - removing gcc and gfortran spkgs

2021-09-23 Thread Matthias Koeppe
On Thursday, September 23, 2021 at 7:48:35 PM UTC-7 Michael Orlitzky wrote: > You could tar up an entire Gentoo system with > sage installed and it would probably take up less space than our > existing binaries. > Gentoo is not relocatable, so that would not be useful. gentoo-prefix is

Re: [sage-devel] Re: #32532 - removing gcc and gfortran spkgs

2021-09-23 Thread Michael Orlitzky
On Thu, 2021-09-23 at 20:51 -0700, Matthias Koeppe wrote: > On Thursday, September 23, 2021 at 7:48:35 PM UTC-7 Michael Orlitzky wrote: > > > Whoever is building the binary images could install a compiler into > > SAGE_LOCAL with "dpkg-deb -x" or whatever before they start. There's no > > need

Re: [sage-devel] Re: #32532 - removing gcc and gfortran spkgs

2021-09-23 Thread Matthias Koeppe
On Thursday, September 23, 2021 at 7:48:35 PM UTC-7 Michael Orlitzky wrote: > We ship a > 3GB image of an entire operating system. This could be done much easier > by... shipping an image of an entire operating system: QEMU, > VirtualBox, Docker, etc. > We don't even seem to have enough

Re: [sage-devel] Re: #32532 - removing gcc and gfortran spkgs

2021-09-23 Thread Matthias Koeppe
On Thursday, September 23, 2021 at 7:48:35 PM UTC-7 Michael Orlitzky wrote: > 2, 4, 6, and 7 are addressed by Conda, Nix, Guix, Homebrew, or even > Gentoo Prefix. > Item 7 of my list, pip-installability, is definitely not addressed by any of these. From a Python dev viewpoint, a project that

Re: [sage-devel] Re: #32532 - removing gcc and gfortran spkgs

2021-09-23 Thread Michael Orlitzky
On Thu, 2021-09-23 at 20:32 -0700, John H Palmieri wrote: > Item #2 actually happened. Can you cite posts from people successfully > using the tools you mention to get around it? People who solve the unnecessary problem in the obvious and reliable way don't post about it. If you really doubt

Re: [sage-devel] Re: #32532 - removing gcc and gfortran spkgs

2021-09-23 Thread Matthias Koeppe
On Thursday, September 23, 2021 at 7:48:35 PM UTC-7 Michael Orlitzky wrote: > Whoever is building the binary images could install a compiler into > SAGE_LOCAL with "dpkg-deb -x" or whatever before they start. There's no > need for it to come from an SPKG. I don't think Debian packages are

Re: [sage-devel] Re: #32532 - removing gcc and gfortran spkgs

2021-09-23 Thread John H Palmieri
Item #2 actually happened. Can you cite posts from people successfully using the tools you mention to get around it? On Thursday, September 23, 2021 at 7:48:35 PM UTC-7 Michael Orlitzky wrote: > On Thu, 2021-09-23 at 18:12 -0700, Matthias Koeppe wrote: > > I repeat my strong objections to the

Re: [sage-devel] Re: #32532 - removing gcc and gfortran spkgs

2021-09-23 Thread William Stein
On Thu, Sep 23, 2021 at 7:48 PM Michael Orlitzky wrote: > On Thu, 2021-09-23 at 18:12 -0700, Matthias Koeppe wrote: > And, veering off-topic: > > Our binaries aren't really binaries in the traditional sense. We ship a > 3GB image of an entire operating system. This could be done much easier >

Re: [sage-devel] Re: #32532 - removing gcc and gfortran spkgs

2021-09-23 Thread Michael Orlitzky
On Thu, 2021-09-23 at 18:12 -0700, Matthias Koeppe wrote: > I repeat my strong objections to the proposed change -- which does not > solve any problems and only creates new ones. > 2, 4, 6, and 7 are addressed by Conda, Nix, Guix, Homebrew, or even Gentoo Prefix. These projects *want* to build

Re: [sage-devel] #32532 - removing gcc and gfortran spkgs

2021-09-23 Thread Matthias Koeppe
Thanks for the update on this, François; I have added a link to your post to our Fortran meta-ticket https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/23926 On Thursday, September 23, 2021 at 6:29:52 PM UTC-7 François Bissey wrote: > > > > On 24/09/2021, at 13:12, Matthias Koeppe wrote: > > > > c) The use of

Re: [sage-devel] #32532 - removing gcc and gfortran spkgs

2021-09-23 Thread François Bissey
> On 24/09/2021, at 13:12, Matthias Koeppe wrote: > > c) The use of any Fortran compiler other than homebrew's packaging of > gfortran on macOS (and our gfortran spkg) is completely unexplored. Given the > instability of homebrew -- as a rolling platform on which it is not possible > to

[sage-devel] Re: #32532 - removing gcc and gfortran spkgs

2021-09-23 Thread Matthias Koeppe
I repeat my strong objections to the proposed change -- which does not solve any problems and only creates new ones. 1. When you refer to the "huge time sink", I think you are referring to painful memories from some distant past. But we have no current or recent problem with either the gcc or

Re: [sage-devel] #32532 - removing gcc and gfortran spkgs

2021-09-23 Thread John H Palmieri
I presume that this is not an issue for linux, but maybe I'm wrong about that. In any case, I'm concerned about OS X. - How well tested are the various standalone Fortran options for OS X? I mean, how well tested are they for building Sage? Gfortran coming from homebrew is already included in

Re: [sage-devel] #32532 - removing gcc and gfortran spkgs

2021-09-23 Thread Michael Orlitzky
On Thu, 2021-09-23 at 23:17 +0100, Dima Pasechnik wrote: > https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/32532 > proposes to remove > these packages as not needed, and a huge time sink for everyone involved. > I'm sure this list changes every time I make it

Re: [sage-devel] #32532 - removing gcc and gfortran spkgs

2021-09-23 Thread François Bissey
As someone who contributed to those (and literally created the gfortran package when I pushed for enabling clang support on OS X) I welcome their demise. I’ll review their removal with pleasure if you need it. François > On 24/09/2021, at 10:17, Dima Pasechnik wrote: > >

[sage-devel] #32532 - removing gcc and gfortran spkgs

2021-09-23 Thread Dima Pasechnik
https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/32532 proposes to remove these packages as not needed, and a huge time sink for everyone involved. Rationale: nowadays every platform that Sage supports has said tools (or their equivalents - e.g. clang/clang++