Re: [sage-devel] NTL v10

> On 12/10/2016, at 06:54, Victor Shoup wrote: > > While I'm not ready to go all autotools, I've started reading about it. > I read about the DESTDIR trick that some package managers use, > so I added support for that in the makefile. Although I suppose > that may not be so

Re: [sage-devel] NTL v10

On Oct 11, 2016, at 01:13 , John Cremona wrote: > On 11 October 2016 at 01:03, Victor Shoup wrote: >> First, you are definitely wrong about punch cards. I started programming >> with Fortran on punch cards in the 70s. > > Punch cards? They were a great advance on paper tape

Re: [sage-devel] NTL v10

On Tuesday, October 11, 2016 at 3:02:17 PM UTC, John Cremona wrote: > > On 11 October 2016 at 15:34, William Stein > wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 7:24 AM, Dima Pasechnik > wrote: > >> > >> > >> On Tuesday, October 11, 2016 at 8:14:02 AM UTC,

Re: [sage-devel] NTL v10

On 11 October 2016 at 15:34, William Stein wrote: > On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 7:24 AM, Dima Pasechnik wrote: >> >> >> On Tuesday, October 11, 2016 at 8:14:02 AM UTC, John Cremona wrote: >>> >>> On 11 October 2016 at 01:03, Victor Shoup wrote:

Re: [sage-devel] NTL v10

On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 7:24 AM, Dima Pasechnik wrote: > > > On Tuesday, October 11, 2016 at 8:14:02 AM UTC, John Cremona wrote: >> >> On 11 October 2016 at 01:03, Victor Shoup wrote: >> > First, you are definitely wrong about punch cards. I started

Re: [sage-devel] NTL v10

On Tuesday, October 11, 2016 at 8:14:02 AM UTC, John Cremona wrote: > > On 11 October 2016 at 01:03, Victor Shoup > wrote: > > First, you are definitely wrong about punch cards. I started programming > > with Fortran on punch cards in the 70s. > > Punch cards? They were

Re: [sage-devel] NTL v10

On 11 October 2016 at 01:03, Victor Shoup wrote: > First, you are definitely wrong about punch cards. I started programming > with Fortran on punch cards in the 70s. Punch cards? They were a great advance on paper tape which is what *I* started on. To correct a typo in your

Re: [sage-devel] NTL v10

And actually I said some stuff without revisiting what is done in Gentoo and in sage and I am not sure which one is overkill anymore. I inherit cruft from someone else (possibly me in the past). I need to sort it out. To go back to: Second, in the patch, you write $(LINK) $(LIBTOOL_FLAGS)

Re: [sage-devel] NTL v10

Anyway, like I said, I'm pretty much done, modulo a couple of things that I asked about two posts above. Hopefully, someone can clarify those points soon, and then there will be a distribution of NTL that does not require any patching :-) On Monday, October 10, 2016 at 8:16:17 PM UTC-4,

Re: [sage-devel] NTL v10

Autotools is nicer for a lot of things. sage does patch to use libtools and I stayed away from that in Gentoo. The main advantage as far as I am concerned is that it makes it easier to produce shared libraries, correctly on a variety of platforms. Just for linux, and OS X, you don’t strictly need

Re: [sage-devel] NTL v10

I am almost done with everything!! I have just a couple of remaining questions. First, I am having a hard time understanding why singular is having a hard time with the definition of NTL_NEW_OP. It is defined that way for a reason, and this is completely standard C++ (standard, as in C++98).

Re: [sage-devel] NTL v10

First, you are definitely wrong about punch cards. I started programming with Fortran on punch cards in the 70s. Second, a complete transition to auto tools still feels like overkill at this point. But I agree that it could come one day. In any case, I am almost done with all the requested

Re: [sage-devel] NTL v10

On Monday, October 10, 2016 at 9:09:38 PM UTC+1, François wrote: > > On 11/10/16 01:58, Victor Shoup wrote: > > Another issue. I'm not sure if $(MAKE) is specific to gnu make or if it > is universal. > > In general, I don't want to assume gnu. But I can certainly make this > the default, >

Re: [sage-devel] NTL v10

On 11/10/16 01:58, Victor Shoup wrote: Another issue. I'm not sure if $(MAKE) is specific to gnu make or if it is universal. In general, I don't want to assume gnu. But I can certainly make this the default, and provide a config variable to override. I'll have another go at this when you use

Re: [sage-devel] NTL v10

About the make variable... I can definitely see it's utility with make -j... I would guess that's the main advantage, and that's easy enough to fix in the makefile itself. The other calls to make from other scripts are a bit more problematic. Would you say they are a priority? And if so,

Re: [sage-devel] NTL v10

Hum sorry I did not read the previous posts completely. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this

Re: [sage-devel] NTL v10

Using MAKE also let you trigger parallel build for subtargets with MAKE="make -j128". Given the current use of make within the makefile it is not really the case. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and

Re: [sage-devel] NTL v10

On 2016-10-10 16:13, Victor Shoup wrote: One more question, relating to $(MAKE). There are a number of scripts besides the makefile that also invoke make. Should these also be modified? But then the mechanism would have to be different (environment variable?). Before I can sort that out, I

Re: [sage-devel] NTL v10

On Monday, October 10, 2016 at 3:53:34 PM UTC+2, Victor Shoup wrote: > > Let me get this straight... > You say that the tarball does not contain a libtool script, but rather, > contains a directory that contains files that will build a libtool script > at compile time. Is that right? Which

Re: [sage-devel] NTL v10

One more question, relating to $(MAKE). There are a number of scripts besides the makefile that also invoke make. Should these also be modified? But then the mechanism would have to be different (environment variable?). Before I can sort that out, I would like to know what is the goal here? Is

Re: [sage-devel] NTL v10

Let me get this straight... You say that the tarball does not contain a libtool script, but rather, contains a directory that contains files that will build a libtool script at compile time. Is that right? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups

Re: [sage-devel] NTL v10

On 10 October 2016 at 14:46, Victor Shoup wrote: > Ok, thanks. I will try to get this done this week. Your explanation was very > helpful. Hopefully, I can piece together a solution based on the scripts you > pointed to in your previous reply. > > I admit, I've been quite a

Re: [sage-devel] NTL v10

Ok, thanks. I will try to get this done this week. Your explanation was very helpful. Hopefully, I can piece together a solution based on the scripts you pointed to in your previous reply. I admit, I've been quite a dinosaur when it comes to autotools stuff...when I started, none of this

Re: [sage-devel] NTL v10

On Monday, October 10, 2016 at 2:58:38 PM UTC+2, Victor Shoup wrote: > > Ok, I will start working on these issues. The one I understand the least > is libtool. > It looks like you are saying I should generate a libtool script on the > machine X on which > I create the NTL tarball. But this

Re: [sage-devel] NTL v10

Ok, I will start working on these issues. The one I understand the least is libtool. It looks like you are saying I should generate a libtool script on the machine X on which I create the NTL tarball. But this seems very strange. How could that script be any better than one generated/installed

Re: [sage-devel] NTL v10

Thanks for the hint, we are already a few versions behind. I've opened #21676 for us to update, if anyone wants to review it: * https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/21676#ticket By the way we are still shipping a few patches, have a look at: *

Re: [sage-devel] NTL v10

Haha, yes, that was one reason to do it. On Saturday, October 8, 2016 at 4:27:01 PM UTC-4, François wrote: > > > > On 9/10/2016, at 09:21, Victor Shoup > wrote: > > > > • I've renamed all the ".c" files to ".cpp" files in the Unix > distribution. This seems to be

Re: [sage-devel] NTL v10

> On 9/10/2016, at 09:21, Victor Shoup wrote: > > • I've renamed all the ".c" files to ".cpp" files in the Unix > distribution. This seems to be more in line with common practice, and should > make it easier to work with compilers and other software development tools.

[sage-devel] NTL v10

I hope this is of some interest to the Sage community. I've just released a new version of NTL at http://www.shoup.net/ntl Here is a summary of changes. *New License: LGPLv2.1* - With the permission of all relevant contributors, NTL is now licensed under LGPLv2.1+ (the Lesser GNU Public