On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 1:35 AM, Ralf Hemmecke <r...@hemmecke.de> wrote: > >> There has to be a significant benefit. > > I don't think that the idea of "configure" is/was that it is easier for > the enduser. It's easier for the developers with only a very small > overhead for the enduser. If something fails, an ordinary enduser > probably has no idea what to do next. This applies to a build with or > without configure. > > > Keep in mind that a *lot* of Sage users -- probably most -- are not UNIX >> hackers, and would consider the second version below more complicated >> with no gain at all: >> >> TO BUILD SAGE: >> 1. Type "make" >> >> vs >> >> TO BUILD SAGE: >> 1. Type "./configure" >> 2. Type make > > Right. That was exactly one of my questions. Is it worth to burden the > enduser with the usual "./configure && make && make install" or should > it just stay "make" as it is now. > >> Obviously *I* could personally get quickly get used to the second >> option, and in fact as I mentioned earlier I'm annoyed that Sage's >> build system is a little different than most UNIX software (I.e., >> skipping the ./configure step). But I have to balance this with >> concern for the vast majority of people that build Sage from source. > > I agree that one really has to take the target audience into account. > > A simple suggestion would be, but "./configure && make && make install" > into a shell script called "sage-install" and tell that to the users. > People, who like it the standard way, can then still use the configure > and make commands separately. > > And, as usual there should be an INSTALL file in the top-level directory > which exactly explains how to install the program. > > Actually, I wonder why so many people build sage from source if there > are binary versions around.
Why do you think so many people build sage from source? I checked the download numbers yesterday and in the last month (despite no new sage releases), there were over 5000 downloads. Of those only 10% were source downloads. The vast majority of users install binaries. > Maybe they have the same problem that I had > when I first considered installing sage. I simply did not know what to > choose and in a source distribution I usually expect everything. > > Sage *is* different than other programs, since even in the binary > release it comes with .hg repositories (under devel and local/bin) and > lets users actually modify what they want. Sage is indeed different in that the technology is constructed to discourage to "developer"/"end user" dichotomy that you mention above. Anyone who is at all serious about using Sage is also a programmer, since the user interface to Sage is a programming language. Because the goals of the Sage project require massive people-power, Sage provides every user with an easy environment in which to do development. William -- William Stein Associate Professor of Mathematics University of Washington http://wstein.org --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
