On Dec 23, 11:13 pm, "William Stein" <wst...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 11:02 PM, William Stein <wst...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi,
Hi,
> > I propose moving the polymake spkg to be experimental instead of
> > optional. If anybody cares, please respond to this email. It's
> > crystal clear having looked at the polymake spkg tonight that not a
> > single person has successfully installed polymake in several months.
Not true, it is that the version in the repo has been broken :)
> > See: http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/4868
See http://sage.math.washington.edu/home/mabshoff/polymake-2.2.p5.spkg
and the ticket #3640. Polymake is a prime example where sticking
things into the optional or experimental spkg repo without proper
review and an active maintainer is wrong.
> Hi, just responding to myself here, the following optional spkg's all
> fail to install on sage.math (a standard Ubuntu box):
>
> dvipng-1.8
> gcc-4.2.1
> hermes-0.9.4-linux
> jmol-11.5.2-src-v2
> polymake-2.2.p4
>
> I would like to deprecate all of them to experimental. Reasoning:
>
> * dvipng-1.8 -- available on any linux/os x system via standard
> package tools; has nothing to do with sage
Delete it completely. The dependencies are insane and people just
install the distributions version..
> * gcc-4.2.1 -- this spkg exists only because Michael made it so I
> could try to build sage on some weird systems where the system-wide
> compilers were crap. It doesn't build on sage.math now, and it's not
> something almost anybody should use.
Well, that is because Sage seems to be missing 32 bit userspace. That
is an installation issue, but I am fine with moving it to experimental
or even deleting it. I have a gcc 4.3.2.spkg, but I am sure that will
also fail currently on sage.math. But monkeying around and custom
fitting things for sage.math is just wrong, i.e if dependencies are
missing it just won't work.
> * jmol-11.5.2-src-v2 -- this spkg exists to demonstrate that in
> theory jmol can be built from source. I don't think anybody actually
> has ever used it. Better would be a web page that contains the spkg
> and instructions on how to use it to make the binary spkg.
This probably fails because because the Sun Java JDK isn't installed.
jmol never worked with the gcj toolchain, so no surprise here.
> * hermes-0.9.4-linux -- a binary-only spkg that doesn't (and doesn't
> fail gracefully) on any system I have. I don't even know what it
> does. I don't know where it came from. It hasn't been touched in
> nearly three years.
This was discussed in another thread and we should just remove it.
> * polymake-2.2.p4 -- I don't know if this builds on anything. See
> above. Since Sage doesn't binary link to polymake at all, it is
> better if polymake is installed from some official polymake binaries
> or whatever completely independent of sage.
Well, I fixed it.
> I want the Sage "optional" packages to *all* install fine on every
> system that we officially support Sage on.
No chance this is going to work.
> There should be a single
> command to easily install *all* of them, and another easy way to run
> all relevant optional doctests (that depend on all the free optional
> spkg's).
That won't work either. All we can shoot for is to get them all
working on sage.math. There are also optional doctests in sage that
depend on experimental spkgs like M2. And M2 does not build on Solaris
as is for example.
> -- William
Cheers,
Mihcael
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
sage-devel-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel
URLs: http://www.sagemath.org
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
