On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 5:16 PM, Dr. David Kirkby <david.kir...@onetel.net> wrote: >> 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
I'm pretty much by default against adding any new standard packages to Sage anytime soon. I can't think of anything even on the horizon. Maybe some sort of linear programming code is being proposed. Can anybody else think of anything? The last two packages that we added to Sage -- cliquer and ratpoints -- both caused a lot of trouble. I will be much more careful in the future about adding spkg's. -- William --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
