On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 10:02 PM, mabshoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On Jul 20, 11:20 am, "Ondrej Certik" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 6:38 PM, mabshoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > <SNIP> > > Hi Ondrej, > >> > But even then it will only be a question of time until something else >> > blows up. That is why I strictly refuse to support Sage being used in >> > that way in the first place. >> >> Sage should use its own versions of libraries for the reasons you >> stated. One exception could be Python, >> e.g. there could be an easy way to compile Sage with the systemwide >> python, because (imho) Python doesn't change that much, so it could >> work in most cases. It works even now. > > Nope, it does not work for example on OSX. With a python 2.5.2 on
I don't understand the OSX problems about universal/non universal python (ucs2 vs ucs4 surely can be fixed). > Linux x86 and x86 it should mostly work, but on Linux Itanium it does > not work since in the official 2.5.2 readline is busted. On Solaris That really sucks. I hope upstream fixes that. > and OSX there is also the multilib issue, i.e. 32 vs. 64 bit are > supported on the same machine. So I disagree that it mostly works and > I consider it a bad, bad idea to even give the user some simple option > to make Sage build with the system python. It is trivial to do if you > know your way around the Sage build system, but that actually means > that one can likely fix issues oneself like in your case. Everybody > else just has to play by the rules. Well, if the situation is that the system wide python is so different on different machines that it makes Sage fail, then it sucks. Imho. > > And I won't post the obvious one line diff to make Sage with system > python at build time work. If you need to ask you shouldn't play with > something that could cause endless trouble :p I understand your point as the release manager, but from the users point of view, if every program distributed all the libraries (python, fortran, libxml, and all the other stuff that ships with sage), and it would be incompatible with the other installations, as currently Sage is incompatible with systemwide python as you stressed several times, then it's bad, because I cannot mix Sage with other components on my system. So it's Sage and the rest of the world. >> As chatted on IRC, the LD_LIBRARY_PATH problem *might* get fixed using: >> >> http://packages.debian.org/sid/chrpath > > Yes, this certainly offers possibilities. Fortunately. Ondrej --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URLs: http://www.sagemath.org -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
