On 06/09/2008, at 3:27 AM, mabshoff wrote:
> The Framework build of Sage
Do we have a framework build of sage? We have an unsupported
framework build of python, and R can be built as a framework, but
turning sage itself into a framework would be a kind of huge job. I
doubt it would be v
Hi
On 06/09/2008, at 3:21 AM, Simon Beaumont wrote:
>
> I tried building sage 3.0.1 with David Philps patches - make failed
> first with the r build looking for sage (which is in there somewhere
R sometimes fails to build if fink is findable. I don't think that is
related to any frameworks.
On a more upbeat note: the only motivation for all this grief was to
build pycuda - against boost - against a framework based python. I
have not been so impressed with CUDA for basic matrix operations
relative to a fast muti-core CPU on relatively small matrices (though
I really like the pycuda a
On Sep 5, 6:27 pm, mabshoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sep 5, 10:21 am, Simon Beaumont <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> > I tried building sage 3.0.1
>
> *3.0.1*?
>
3.1.1 of course - it's been a long day...
> > with David Philps patches - make failed
> > first with the r build lookin
On Sep 5, 10:21 am, Simon Beaumont <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
> I tried building sage 3.0.1
*3.0.1*?
> with David Philps patches - make failed
> first with the r build looking for sage (which is in there somewhere
> but without packages in place) so I did a make -k and have attached
> the
I lied about attaching the log (I have a bzipped log if that's of any
interest to anyone)
On Sep 5, 6:21 pm, Simon Beaumont <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I tried building sage 3.0.1 with David Philps patches - make failed
> first with the r build looking for sage (which is in there somewhere
> but
