On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 10:41 PM, Dr. David Kirkby <david.kir...@onetel.net> wrote: > Gonzalo Tornaria wrote: >> >> On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 3:24 AM, Dr. David Kirkby >> <david.kir...@onetel.net> wrote: >>> >>> But sorting out whether the version of libraries on a system are >>> suitable, >>> can be tricky. Even having the right versions does not guarantee they >>> will >>> be found in preference to some other version. >> >> Sure. We already have related issues. For example, the prereq checks >> perl is installed, but it doesn't check for some perl modules which >> are required (but not part of debian's perl-base --- not really needed >> for anything except building sage). > > I've made quite a few changes to 'prereq' recently, so I'm probably the best > person to make any more changes. I'm certainly willing to do the one to > check for Fortran.
Thanks! > But tell me what perl modules are needed. If > > 1) There is some agreeemnt to exit if they do not exist AND > 2) There is some reasonably simple way of checking for them, IIRC, the only place perl is used in all of Sage is for the PARI and NTL build systems. I don't know what that implies about needed modules though. > > then I can implement a test. > >> As long as it builds with libraries in current debian / fedora / >> ubuntu, it's ok. > > Does every Linux user always update to have the latest versions? I doubt it. > In some cases, they will not have root access and so can't update. I agree. In fact, I would guess that the vast majority of Linux accounts on Linux systems are not admin accounts. Such users will then have to build the relevant libraries (such as readline, etc.) in their own $HOME/local tree, succeed in getting Sage to recognize their non-standard libraries, etc. > The build process will need to handle properly the cases where the libraries > are not right. I think actually testing them might be VERY difficult. Yes, that worries me too. Incidentally, when I used to hang out with John Cannon and have discussions in which I tried to convince him to open source Magma, one of his biggest concerns was that supporting thousands of users building Magma from source would be too difficult. Magma is about half the size of Sage (in terms of lines of code). Gonzalo, how would we actually do what you're suggesting? Could you lay out a somewhat detailed step-by-step plan, with estimates of how much work each step would be to carry out and maintain in the long run, which platforms would be supported, which packages would be removed when, etc.? I'm worried that this discussion is going nowhere due to lack of specifics and all sides being worried about nebulous unclear fears. -- 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
