I would be in favor of delegating Itanium to a second class platform. As less and less people have access to it its bound to become more troublesome. Of course there is value in having it working eventually, but it doesn't have to be on the first day.
On Tuesday, November 13, 2012 10:09:08 PM UTC-5, Dima Pasechnik wrote: > > On 2012-11-13, Volker Braun <vbrau...@gmail.com <javascript:>> wrote: > > ------=_Part_133_37800.1352827000551 > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > > > Apparently it won't. Itanium doesn't work correctly and it doesn't look > > like Clint (=Upstream) will have time anytime soon to look into it. If I > > were him I'd think twice about prioritizing effort for a dead platform, > > too. > This does look very unfortunate that we have to be held back by this. > Should we just ship sage on itanium with an older atlas? > > Dima > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, November 13, 2012 7:32:00 AM UTC-5, P Purkayastha wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> On Monday, October 15, 2012 10:27:41 PM UTC+8, Dima Pasechnik wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> another issue here is that the Atlas version used in 5.3 is old and > >>> obsolete. > >>> The new one is here: > >>> http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/10508 > >>> > >>> > >> I hope it gets in soon. 5.10 is so much better. Compiled here in 30m, > >> while the previous one would go on and on for hours and then eventually > >> fail. > >> > > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-support" group. 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. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-support?hl=en.
