On 26 Okt., 16:11, kcrisman <kcris...@gmail.com> wrote: > Leif - > > Any thoughts on the source suggestion? If there really would be > little confusion with a separate Darwin source distribution that > included fortran (where it could be verified this was the only > difference), that might also be a way to go, as you say.
Rather than having two (or more!) source tarballs, which would (as is) require different upgrade paths as well, and probably annoy people mirroring Sage distros, what about having a separate sage-x.y.z-darwin- prerequisites.tar, to be extracted into the same location as the source tarball (i.e., having the same directory structure to simplify things)? This would require some little changes to the spkg/install and sage- upgrade scripts (and sage-sdist). As William says, I think shipping g95/gfortran sources to be built on Darwin is non-trivial and hardly worth doing (feel free to try it, to work on a wide range of Darwin installations...) If we do the above, i.e. provide an additional Darwin prerequisites tarball, we could even include an XCode spkg, as long as Apple's copyright lets us. (I haven't looked at that, but since it is based on / includes GNU software, it possibly does.) Similar might be convenient for Cygwin I guess, as AFAIR Sage requires Cygwin packages not present / installed by default as well. (In principle, we could move more packages into such a - not necessarily platform-dependent - category, to be only [downloaded and] installed if desired, e.g. when there's no suitable system-wide copy installed. Mercurial is just one example of such. But that's another roughly related debate.) > > Also, I guess there are people using other platforms that would say > > installing prerequisite xy on my system/platform isn't easy > > either. ;-) > > Perhaps, but in that case they shouldn't be using such user-unfriendly > systems in the first place ;) I remember having to "manually" (re)build gfortran / GCC 4.2.1 to build Sage on Ubuntu 7.10 (which I guess isn't older than MacOS X 10.4), because the Linux binary had been removed from the spkg, there was no matching gfortran installed and (updated) packages for 7.10 weren't available. I'd appreciate if only people having user-friendly operating systems had to pay the price of (each time) downloading additional 33 MB. ;-) As with rsync, downloading only parts of a tarball isn't an option for ordinary users (even if they knew they don't need all of it). Also - for historical reasons I guess - currently the Fortran spkg sets up "sage_fortran", which is sub-optimal but required *on all platforms*, s.t. one cannot simply omit or delete it. (As Dave suggested IIRC, we could move that elsewhere, e.g. 'configure' or sage-env, and/or simply use FC/F77, FFLAGS etc. where we call the fortran compiler.) <ignore> W.r.t. the batteries, I don't need them for my solar-powered systems... ;-) Buying a coffee portioner (I don't use anyway) with every pound is just environmental pollution and a waste of resources. </ignore> As I understand this, Sage should be an (almost) self-contained distribution of *math* software, also including /some/ bits required for development (and - if necessary - /modified/ versions of basic things like Python), but isn't an operating system distribution or completely stand-alone SDK (software development toolkit). That of course doesn't prevent us offering *separate* (perhaps optional) easy-to-plug-in prerequisites (and add-on) packages to make installing and using Sage as easy as possible for everyone. And there are usually binary distributions for people not (yet) willing or able to build Sage from source themselves. -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
