Are there issues if the gcc and core C libraries don't match? For
example, If a user uses cython in the notebook, will it pick up the
users g++ and Sage's libstdc++? What about someone who starts with a
binary then starts developing with it or installs optional packages?
On OS X, the
Kasper Peeters wrote:
I'd propose that we include in any binary distribution gcc's C, C++ and Fortran
shared libraries.
I personally think that this is a _very_ bad idea. As others have
emphasised, most
systems out there have a proper package management tool, which can
moreover
take care of
As much as I can see why people do not like this, I can see a lot of
logic in William's approach.
To add to what David said, some of this is historical. The 100
packages sage builds now are unwieldy, but it was not always so.
Earlier distributions contained much less, and shipping them
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 1:37 AM, Dr. David Kirkby
david.kir...@onetel.net wrote:
Kasper Peeters wrote:
I'd propose that we include in any binary distribution gcc's C, C++ and
Fortran
shared libraries.
I personally think that this is a _very_ bad idea. As others have
emphasised, most
Just from a purely pragmatic perspective, I would love if for binary
builds the libraries (especially libstdc++) used during building would
be *available* (not necessarily linked to) by default. Several times I
ran into a situation where I quickly wanted to test something with a
new version of
Nick Alexander wrote:
As much as I can see why people do not like this, I can see a lot of
logic in William's approach.
To add to what David said, some of this is historical. The 100 packages
sage builds now are unwieldy, but it was not always so. Earlier
distributions contained much less,
There is a fundamental difference between math and system libraries.
Specialist software receives much less testing, especially on exotic
architectures. You can easily be the first one who builds X on Y and
run into some obscure bug. So it is valuable to collect mathematical
programs and make sure
On Feb 23, 2010, at 12:48 AM, Kasper Peeters wrote:
While on this topic, can anyone point me to a good read on why Sage
includes every
known piece of software under the sun in its distribution? I would
personally prefer to
get rid of that _all_ and instead use the energy to support deb/rpm/
It would be better for end users if we built standard rpm/deb/etc.
packages that integrate well with the rest of each Linux, OS X,
Solaris, Windows, etc., operating system, and of course regularly
tested that the full test suite passes on each system, and when
packages on those systems get
On Feb 23, 2010, at 1:44 PM, Kasper Peeters wrote:
It would be better for end users if we built standard rpm/deb/etc.
packages that integrate well with the rest of each Linux, OS X,
Solaris, Windows, etc., operating system, and of course regularly
tested that the full test suite passes on each
On Feb 23, 2010, at 9:53 PM, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
On Feb 23, 2010, at 1:44 PM, Kasper Peeters wrote:
It would be better for end users if we built standard rpm/deb/etc.
packages that integrate well with the rest of each Linux, OS X,
Solaris, Windows, etc., operating system, and of course
Are we sure this would work? Won't those libraries depend on what
kernel is installed, etc, etc?
I'm completely ignorant on this, so may be talk out my proverbial.
Bill.
On 22 Feb, 11:27, Dr. David Kirkby david.kir...@onetel.net wrote:
This came up on the thread mercurial on t2 but I thought
Its a good thing that we already make available binaries for those
people with less Linux experience
Whatever we can do to make Sage work out of the box is good
(i.e. I know its 99% there but it will be even better if we can avoid
asking people to ensure certain things are installed and are
If you want to go that route you probably want to include glibc
(contains standard math library) as well. While a viable possibility,
there are two obvious arguments against it:
On Feb 22, 11:27 am, Dr. David Kirkby david.kir...@onetel.net
wrote:
* Always have the libraries.
Instead, check on
Bill Hart wrote:
On 22 Feb, 11:27, Dr. David Kirkby david.kir...@onetel.net wrote:
This came up on the thread mercurial on t2 but I thought I'd start a new
thread on it.
I'd propose that we include in any binary distribution gcc's C, C++ and Fortran
shared libraries. They would be placed in
Volker Braun wrote:
If you want to go that route you probably want to include glibc
(contains standard math library) as well.
While a viable possibility,
there are two obvious arguments against it:
On Feb 22, 11:27 am, Dr. David Kirkby david.kir...@onetel.net
wrote:
* Always have the
On Feb 22, 1:49 pm, Willem Jan Palenstijn w...@usecode.org wrote:
This text describes RedHat's policy on libgcc_s and
libstdc++:http://kbase.redhat.com/faq/docs/DOC-8313
It seems to suggest that if we want to include libstdc++ or libgcc_s, we
should
include both.
Well it literally says:
On 22 Feb., 12:27, Dr. David Kirkby david.kir...@onetel.net wrote:
This came up on the thread mercurial on t2 but I thought I'd start a new
thread on it.
I'd propose that we include in any binary distribution gcc's C, C++ and
Fortran
shared libraries. They would be placed in
-1 from me to including these libraries.
Q1. Are there any other well-known packages which do this? If not, it
is not a standard thing to do, probably for good reason.
Cython uses the C compiler (if I understand correctly). I think this
kills the idea dead.
Q2. Would building Sage with the Sun
Actually, this is really silly. The must be a multitude of packages
for Solaris which are distributed with binaries and which need these
libraries. How do they deal with this issue?
Is there a package installation system like apt-get or yum or rpm on
Solaris? They must surely deal with this issue
Bill Hart wrote:
Actually, this is really silly. The must be a multitude of packages
for Solaris which are distributed with binaries and which need these
libraries. How do they deal with this issue?
Is there a package installation system like apt-get or yum or rpm on
Solaris? They must surely
21 matches
Mail list logo
