On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 5:16 PM, leif <not.rea...@online.de> wrote: > On 25 Okt., 19:25, Robert Bradshaw <rober...@math.washington.edu> > wrote: >> 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 > > I agree on most of the above, too, but I think we shouldn't limit the > list of supported platforms to those available to buildbots. > > I.e., a script to "automatically" (explicitly started by the user, > optionally anonymously) submit (at least) successful build reports > would be helpful, too, such that we can also include "passive slaves", > since I think there are quite a lot people more or less regularly > testing on other - perhaps even exotic - systems as well, but cannot > make their machines available to the build farm. > > Such successfully tested system configurations could at least be > listed in release notes (again by a script); nobody wants to manually > extract them from posts on sage-release, and I guess this way even > more people would contribute build reports.
I agree, though it should perhaps be distinguished in the report (i.e. have a list of systems on which Sage is reported to build on, because we don't want to promise anything--who knows how odd the setups might be there). And even as part of the release process, the sage-release posts are a very inefficient way of doing things. > (The per-release build farm wiki pages [1] are updated by even fewer > people than report on sage-release, for I think a couple of reasons. > Anonymous reports could be automatically added there, too.) A big +1 to any automated, descriptive list of supported systems (as opposed to out-of-date and prescriptive ones). - 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
