On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 5:11 AM, Dr. David Kirkby <david.kir...@onetel.net> wrote: > > 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.
You have a very good point. We should also consider having two Sage versions -- one with *all* optional free packages, and one without. That way optional packages would get much much better testing, and be on a far better footing than they are now. We should really learn from projects like R, Perl, Ubuntu, etc. that all have extremely robust well tested optional package systems. -- 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
