That's fine. Perhaps the Solaris hardware requirements can be made explicit on
the install page and in the README.txt file?
In the README.txt file, I notice this:
1. Make sure you have the dependencies and 2.5 GB of free disk space.
Linux (install these using your package manager):
GCC, g++, make, m4, perl, ranlib, and tar.
OS X: XCode. WARNING: If "gcc -v" outputs 4.0.0, you *must*
upgrade XCode (free from Apple), since that version of GCC is
very broken.
Microsoft Windows: Not supported yet.
NOTE: On some operating systems, it might be necessary to install
gas/as, gld/ld, gnm/nm. On most platforms, these are automatically
installed when you install the programs listed above. Only OS X
>= 10.4.x and certain Linux distributions are 100% supported. See
below for a complete list.
I assume the software requirements for compiling on Solaris are the same as for
Linux, true?
Will gmake suffice instead of make?
Thanks for the help.
dan
________________________________
From: Dr. David Kirkby <david.kir...@onetel.net>
To: sage-support@googlegroups.com
Sent: Thu, July 29, 2010 11:54:27 AM
Subject: Re: [sage-support] Solaris installation problems
On 07/29/10 07:04 PM, DWL wrote:
> Machine: SunOS 5.10 Generic_142900-03 sun4u sparc SUNW, Sun-Blade-100
> (UltraSPARC-IIe)
>
> OS: Solaris 10 5/09 s10s_u7wos_08 SPARC
>
> Other processor info:
> The sparcv9 processor operates at 502 MHz.
> 64-bit sparcv9 applications
> vis
> 32-bit sparc applications
> vis v8plus div32 mul32
>
That is almost certainly the problem.
The binary was created on a Sun Blade 1000, fitted with a pair of newer
processor UltraSPARC III+ CPUs. Many parts of Sage optimise for the hardware,
and so would have optimised for the UltraSPARC III+, which would mean it would
not run on older CPUs.
We do have a variable in SAGE, called SAGE_FAT_BINARY. If that's set at compile
time, the software should build in a way suitable for older CPUs. But
SAGE_FAT_BINARY is not supported on Solaris.
Compiling from source will take a long time on that machine. Several days -
perhaps as long as a week! But it should work.
I could create a binary for that processor, but in no less time than you can
create one, as I would have to use a similar specification machine.
I must admit, when I built Sage, I had overlooked the fact some CPUs might be
older than what I have.
Perhaps the next binary I produce, I'll build it on older hardware.
Dave
-- To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
sage-support+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/sage-support
URL: http://www.sagemath.org
--
To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
sage-support+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/sage-support
URL: http://www.sagemath.org
