On Tuesday, April 22, 2025 at 11:42:21 AM UTC-5 Michael Orlitzky wrote:
On 2025-04-22 10:19:54, Dima Pasechnik wrote: > > That's the first time I see a complaint that the Apple's libraries used for > Python or its modules are not accepted. > This is something we can fix, to an extent. And surely we can adjust the > check for xz. > > Regarding macOS native bzip2, it just happens to pass our tests, nothing > weird about it. > > Regarding libz, it, implictly, needs pkg-config. One can hand-craft > pkg-config .pc file for it, then macOS native libz probably will work, I > didn't try. We should investigate these independently. Is there any reason for someone to build zlib, bzip2, libffi, or liblzma in 2025? I don't think there is. I'm starting to prepare PRs to move them to pre-reqs, following the patch spkg removal (to appear in the coming beta). The most obvious one is bzip2, which is available everywhere, no extra fiddling needed. Please review (removing bzip2 spkg) https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/40011 Dima If there is, we can't really get rid of python yet. But if not, we should aim to eliminate them all to avoid conflicts between the system python (that we want to force) and the SPKG libraries. This won't immediately solve Marc's problem, but it would make him the main consumer of those SPKGs and grant him the freedom to nuke whatever gets in his way. That should eventually clear up the conflict between how easy it is to use sage to build these packages, and how annoying it is to get sage to accept them. And in the meantime, a ./configure override would let him keep doing what he is doing. -- 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 view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/6bee67f4-e258-44ef-8674-2f07cc56c6e0n%40googlegroups.com.
