On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 7:09 AM, David Kirkby <david.kir...@onetel.net> wrote: > As has been remarked before, Sage has number lists of "supported > platforms", no two of which agree with each other. > > I proposed some time ago we break the list into 3 > > 1) Fully supported - every Sage release is tested on it. > 2) Expected to work > 3) Probably will not work, but porting work in ongoing > > See > > http://wiki.sagemath.org/suggested-for-supported-platforms > > Now we have a build bot for Sage, it is relatively easy to test every > release of Sage on a number of systems. Currently there are 17 systems > on which Sage is being built. > > http://build.sagemath.org/sage/waterfall > > I suggest that we provide a page like > > http://wiki.sagemath.org/suggested-for-supported-platforms > > but put those 17 systems into the "Fully supported". That means the > exact versions of the operating systems would be given, and not just > "Fedora" or "Ubunta", OS X or Solaris. > > Then, we move into the "Expected to work" category, recent > distributions of these systems, and any older ones we might expect to > work, but do not actually test on. > > Any attempt to say we support "the latest release" of a distribution > is IMHO unwise, as we can't possibly do this. Linux distributions come > out all the time, and often break. Apparently Sage has been broken for > some time on OpenSUSE 11.2 and 11.3. > > We should then have an errata page like > > http://wiki.sagemath.org/errata > > to let people know of any issues that are discovered after the release. > > Does this sound reasonable to everyone? If so, I am willing to collect > the exact information about all the systems in the buildbot, and add > them to the "Fully supported". (I'm assuming that Sage can be made to > pass all tests on all the hardware on the buildbots, though if that is > not so, then that system would obviously not be placed in the "Fully > supported" section). > > Given we have a buildbot, it should be fairly easy to create binaries > for all these systems too, and make the binaries available.
+1 > We really *must* get ride of all these different lists of "supported" > systems and have one single list, and as many links to that list as we > want. Then the list only needs to get updated in one place. +1 > If we can get agreement on this, I'll do the work, but I'm not going > to waste my time finding out the right information, if there are going > to be endless arguments of what we support. To me, fully supporting > what we can easily test on is the right way to proceed. As I've stated in the past, I'm very supportive of basing our supported platform list on an automated build process, like the build bot we have now set up. - Robert -- 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
