> On 12/10/2016, at 06:54, Victor Shoup wrote:
>
> While I'm not ready to go all autotools, I've started reading about it.
> I read about the DESTDIR trick that some package managers use,
> so I added support for that in the makefile. Although I suppose
> that may not be so relevant for Sage.
On Oct 11, 2016, at 01:13 , John Cremona wrote:
> On 11 October 2016 at 01:03, Victor Shoup wrote:
>> First, you are definitely wrong about punch cards. I started programming
>> with Fortran on punch cards in the 70s.
>
> Punch cards? They were a great advance on paper tape which is what
> *I
On Tuesday, October 11, 2016 at 3:02:17 PM UTC, John Cremona wrote:
>
> On 11 October 2016 at 15:34, William Stein >
> wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 7:24 AM, Dima Pasechnik > wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> On Tuesday, October 11, 2016 at 8:14:02 AM UTC, John Cremona wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On 11 O
On 11 October 2016 at 15:34, William Stein wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 7:24 AM, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, October 11, 2016 at 8:14:02 AM UTC, John Cremona wrote:
>>>
>>> On 11 October 2016 at 01:03, Victor Shoup wrote:
>>> > First, you are definitely wrong about punch cards
On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 7:24 AM, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
>
>
> On Tuesday, October 11, 2016 at 8:14:02 AM UTC, John Cremona wrote:
>>
>> On 11 October 2016 at 01:03, Victor Shoup wrote:
>> > First, you are definitely wrong about punch cards. I started programming
>> > with Fortran on punch cards in
On Tuesday, October 11, 2016 at 8:14:02 AM UTC, John Cremona wrote:
>
> On 11 October 2016 at 01:03, Victor Shoup >
> wrote:
> > First, you are definitely wrong about punch cards. I started programming
> > with Fortran on punch cards in the 70s.
>
> Punch cards? They were a great advance on
On 11 October 2016 at 01:03, Victor Shoup wrote:
> First, you are definitely wrong about punch cards. I started programming
> with Fortran on punch cards in the 70s.
Punch cards? They were a great advance on paper tape which is what
*I* started on. To correct a typo in your program you had to
And actually I said some stuff without revisiting what is done
in Gentoo and in sage and I am not sure which one is overkill
anymore. I inherit cruft from someone else (possibly me in the past).
I need to sort it out.
To go back to:
Second, in the patch, you write
$(LINK) $(LIBTOOL_FLAGS)
where
Anyway, like I said, I'm pretty much done, modulo a couple
of things that I asked about two posts above.
Hopefully, someone can clarify those points soon,
and then there will be a distribution of NTL that does
not require any patching :-)
On Monday, October 10, 2016 at 8:16:17 PM UTC-4, François
Autotools is nicer for a lot of things. sage does patch
to use libtools and I stayed away from that in Gentoo.
The main advantage as far as I am concerned is that it makes
it easier to produce shared libraries, correctly on a variety
of platforms. Just for linux, and OS X, you don’t strictly
need
I am almost done with everything!!
I have just a couple of remaining questions.
First, I am having a hard time understanding why singular is having a hard
time
with the definition of NTL_NEW_OP. It is defined that way for a reason,
and this
is completely standard C++ (standard, as in C++98).
Co
First, you are definitely wrong about punch cards. I started programming
with Fortran on punch cards in the 70s.
Second, a complete transition to auto tools still feels like overkill at
this point.
But I agree that it could come one day.
In any case, I am almost done with all the requested change
On Monday, October 10, 2016 at 9:09:38 PM UTC+1, François wrote:
>
> On 11/10/16 01:58, Victor Shoup wrote:
> > Another issue. I'm not sure if $(MAKE) is specific to gnu make or if it
> is universal.
> > In general, I don't want to assume gnu. But I can certainly make this
> the default,
> >
On 11/10/16 01:58, Victor Shoup wrote:
Another issue. I'm not sure if $(MAKE) is specific to gnu make or if it is
universal.
In general, I don't want to assume gnu. But I can certainly make this the
default,
and provide a config variable to override.
I'll have another go at this when you use
About the make variable... I can definitely see it's utility with make -j... I
would guess that's the main advantage, and that's easy enough to fix in the
makefile itself.
The other calls to make from other scripts are a bit more problematic. Would
you say they are a priority? And if so, woul
Hum sorry I did not read the previous posts completely.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this g
Using MAKE also let you trigger parallel build for subtargets with MAKE="make
-j128".
Given the current use of make within the makefile it is not really the case.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and
On 2016-10-10 16:13, Victor Shoup wrote:
One more question, relating to $(MAKE). There are a number of scripts besides
the makefile that also invoke make. Should these also be modified? But then the
mechanism would have to be different (environment variable?). Before I can sort
that out, I wou
On Monday, October 10, 2016 at 3:53:34 PM UTC+2, Victor Shoup wrote:
>
> Let me get this straight...
> You say that the tarball does not contain a libtool script, but rather,
> contains a directory that contains files that will build a libtool script
> at compile time. Is that right?
Which tar
One more question, relating to $(MAKE). There are a number of scripts besides
the makefile that also invoke make. Should these also be modified? But then the
mechanism would have to be different (environment variable?). Before I can sort
that out, I would like to know what is the goal here? Is s
Let me get this straight...
You say that the tarball does not contain a libtool script, but rather,
contains a directory that contains files that will build a libtool script at
compile time. Is that right?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-devel
On 10 October 2016 at 14:46, Victor Shoup wrote:
> Ok, thanks. I will try to get this done this week. Your explanation was very
> helpful. Hopefully, I can piece together a solution based on the scripts you
> pointed to in your previous reply.
>
> I admit, I've been quite a dinosaur when it come
Ok, thanks. I will try to get this done this week. Your explanation was very
helpful. Hopefully, I can piece together a solution based on the scripts you
pointed to in your previous reply.
I admit, I've been quite a dinosaur when it comes to autotools stuff...when I
started, none of this really
On Monday, October 10, 2016 at 2:58:38 PM UTC+2, Victor Shoup wrote:
>
> Ok, I will start working on these issues. The one I understand the least
> is libtool.
> It looks like you are saying I should generate a libtool script on the
> machine X on which
> I create the NTL tarball. But this see
Ok, I will start working on these issues. The one I understand the least is
libtool.
It looks like you are saying I should generate a libtool script on the machine
X on which
I create the NTL tarball. But this seems very strange. How could that script be
any better
than one generated/installed
Thanks for the hint, we are already a few versions behind.
I've opened #21676 for us to update, if anyone wants to review it:
* https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/21676#ticket
By the way we are still shipping a few patches, have a look at:
* https://github.com/sagemath/sage/blob/master/build/pkgs/n
Haha, yes, that was one reason to do it.
On Saturday, October 8, 2016 at 4:27:01 PM UTC-4, François wrote:
>
>
> > On 9/10/2016, at 09:21, Victor Shoup >
> wrote:
> >
> > • I've renamed all the ".c" files to ".cpp" files in the Unix
> distribution. This seems to be more in line with co
> On 9/10/2016, at 09:21, Victor Shoup wrote:
>
> • I've renamed all the ".c" files to ".cpp" files in the Unix
> distribution. This seems to be more in line with common practice, and should
> make it easier to work with compilers and other software development tools.
>
I have been doi
I hope this is of some interest to the Sage community.
I've just released a new version of NTL at http://www.shoup.net/ntl
Here is a summary of changes.
*New License: LGPLv2.1*
- With the permission of all relevant contributors, NTL is now licensed
under LGPLv2.1+ (the Lesser GNU Public
29 matches
Mail list logo
