William Stein wrote: > On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 5:02 AM, Dr. David Kirkby > <david.kir...@onetel.net> wrote: >> In order that a package build fully under Solaris, under all reasonable >> circumstances, there are 8 possibilities that need to be considered. >> >> 1) Build as 32-bit gcc on SPARC >> 2) Build as 64-bit gcc on SPARC >> 3) Build as 32-bit with Sun's compiler on SPARC >> 4) Build as 64-bit with Sun's compiler on SPARC >> >> 5) Build as 32-bit gcc on x64 >> 6) Build as 64-bit gcc on x64 >> 7) Build as 32-bit with Sun's compiler on x86 >> 8) Build as 64-bit with Sun's compiler on x64 >> >> (It should be noted, that the solving the first 4 will solve all of >> them, as anything that builds on SPARC will *normally* build on x86. >> There are exceptions of course). >> >> IMHO, before a new package in added to the Sage standard distribution, >> it should build under all these 8. Otherwise, it makes porting to a true >> 64-bit version of Sage more and more difficult, as more and more >> packages are added. >> >> Of course, we can have a long-term aim of having a 64-bit version >> building with the Sun compiler (the best solution for Solaris), but that >> aim will get become less and less practical if packages are added which >> don't build under these circumstances. >> >> The cliquer pagckage, which is up for review >> >> http://sagetrac.org/sage_trac/ticket/6681 >> >> certainly fails that, as the patched makefile has the line >> >> CC=gcc >> >> Hence I would be tempted to make that as 'with spgk, needs work', since >> it makes some pretty fundamental assumptions which will not be valid. >> > > But alas cliquer is already in Sage, and that ticket is titled: > > "cliquer doesn't work in 64-bit OS X" > > If the spkg fixes this problem and doesn't make things *worse* on > Solaris, it absolutely should get a positive review. Note that the > assuming "CC=gcc" was already in the original cliquer spkg. It is not > something added by that ticket.
Fair enough. In fact, cliquer presents problems on Solaris too. See the ticket I created a couple of weeks ago. http://sagetrac.org/sage_trac/ticket/6852 "cliquer-1.2 fails to build as it cant find Sun compiler (SCons issue)" > If we were discussing including cliquer in the first place, I might > have a different opinion. So what would your thoughts be, if someone one to propose package X is added, despite the fact it will not build on all of the following? 1) Build as 32-bit gcc on SPARC 2) Build as 64-bit gcc on SPARC 3) Build as 32-bit with Sun's compiler on SPARC 4) Build as 64-bit with Sun's compiler on SPARC 5) Build as 32-bit gcc on x64 6) Build as 64-bit gcc on x64 7) Build as 32-bit with Sun's compiler on x86 8) Build as 64-bit with Sun's compiler on x64 My belief is that if you are serious about a 64-bit port Solaris port, then for *future* packages to be included in the standard distribution, those should be a requirement. Otherwise, a 64-bit Solaris port will get more and more difficult. Sorting out the packages which will not currently build is difficult enough, but adding more packages would make the task more and more difficult. Of course, for optional packages, I don't see this as important. > I encourage you to open your own ticket which is entitled "port > cliquer so that it builds with the Sun Studio compiler", then post a > patch there that addresses the problem you see. > > William At the minute it wont build with gcc. A number of packages which use SCons have this issue on Solaris, as a mixture of Sun and GNU compilers tend to be used. Dave --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to sage-devel-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URL: http://www.sagemath.org -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
