> You can try (or might want) to build on a newer (and faster) x86
> machine with SAGE_FAT_BINARY=YES (see README.txt).
Oh to have the option!
(I just have this PC for the moment ;-)
> (The binary you downloaded seems to not have been built with this
> switch, or something really goes wrong on 10.04.)
It will be interesting to know what other peoples experiences are with 10.04
>> The 32bit 9.04 - 9.10 Ubuntu binaries have been working for quite a
>> few versions on this exact PC.
> Sage binaries prior to 4.4? (I.e., the *same* binary worked under 9.10
> but not 10.04? / see above)
I hope this makes more sense...
Ive been using sage successfully either by building from source or
using the binaries as they were released, for approximately a year on
this same PC. I recall things were ok both under Ubuntu 9.04 and 9.10.
This is the 1st serious problem Ive had and its coincided with Ubuntu
10.04 but that may be a coincidence.
Ill post one more time after a build from source
Until then...
:-)
>> The CPU info is below in case its of use
> It's a "pre-Prescott" Pentium 4 ("Northwood"), hence without pni and
> sse3).
>
> -Leif
>
> --
> 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
>
--
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
