Marshall Hampton wrote: > I proposed making the lrs spkg standard about a year ago; Micheal > Abshoff then critiqued the optional spkg and gave me a list of things > I needed to do. I think I have done all of them, and I would very > much like to see lrs made standard to move the polytope functionality > forward. I really doubt that lrs will cause significant problems, > even on Solaris (I can compile it on t2, and I know nothing about > Solaris).
My belief is that it should build with Sun's compiler, and in 64-bit mode before being made a standard package. Otherwise a port of Sage to 64-bit will just get more and more difficult. Have you tried with SAGE64=yes on Solaris? There are many things in Sage which will not build in 64-bit mode on Solaris with gcc, but I'm really keen that list is not increased. I intend updating prereq so Sage can be tested with the Sun compiler. At present that fails very early, as the 'configure' script in prereq exits with the Sun compiler. However, it is not hard to hack that yourself - just remove the line that causes it to exit when it finds the gcc version is not suitable. I hope to have a better solution soon. > The only reason I have waited to propose lrs as standard is that I > found my last attempt quite depressing. Actually, I think our voting > "system" isn't really formal enough. To be perfectly honest, I think > the reality of it is that I need to convince you (William Stein), the > current release manager, and then make a reasonable sounding case to > everyone else. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
