Pong wrote:
Looking for help in compiling SAGE 5.9
I encountered an error in buliding Singular-3-1-5.p7
I suspect the following may be the relevant part of the log file
In file included from ../kernel/si_gmp.h:4:0,
from ../kernel/structs.h:15,
from weight0.c
Thank you all for helping along the way. I got SAGE-5.9 installed finally.
It was just a long wait at the stripping unneeded symbols from binaries and
libraries...
On Saturday, May 11, 2013 11:06:30 AM UTC-7, Pong wrote:
>
> Thanks. I do still have the prebuild and it passes through the build.
>
Thanks. I do still have the prebuild and it passes through the build.
But now it hangs at
Creating sage-5.9-x86_64-Linux.tar.gz ...
Moving final distribution file to
/home/pong/sage-mathematics/src/sage-5.9/dist
==> Entering fakeroot environment...
==> Starting package()...
==> Tidying install..
Just change the DOT_SAGE line to point to some dir where you have write
permissions, eg /tmp. Sorry, I forgot to warn you about that, but if you still
have the build dir around makepkg won't need to rebuild everything again
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google G
Another wierd thing is that, it produces a pkg/ directory with a strange
premission setting.
d- 2 pong users 4096 May 11 09:05 pkg/
I tried to set it to 755 and it is set to that again when I issue makepkg -i
On Saturday, May 11, 2013 2:16:03 AM UTC-7, arojas wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sat
Alright, I see. Thanks. I only didn't know that. I thought PKGBUILDs are
available only to those in AUR, since they ask you explicitly whether you
want to edit them during installation.
We are getting somewhere since I compiles through Singular. However, it
then failed at the conway_polynomial
On Saturday, May 11, 2013 10:33:01 AM UTC+2, Pong wrote:
>
> The one in community is 5.8 (not 5.9) and isn't it a binary package?
> I'm looking at the one from AUR which is 5.10 beta.
>
>
Binary packages also have PKGBUILDs. You can download them, modify them as
you need and recompile. Check th
The one in community is 5.8 (not 5.9) and isn't it a binary package?
I'm looking at the one from AUR which is 5.10 beta.
On Saturday, May 11, 2013 1:24:26 AM UTC-7, arojas wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, May 11, 2013 10:17:52 AM UTC+2, Pong wrote:
>>
>> Hi arojas,
>>
>> Which PKGBUILD did you use
On Saturday, May 11, 2013 10:17:52 AM UTC+2, Pong wrote:
>
> Hi arojas,
>
> Which PKGBUILD did you use? Where I search on the arch repo, I only
> see SAGE-5.8 (in community) and SAGE-5.10-devel in AUR.
> Where I downloaded the source (SAGE-5.9) and fellowed your suggestion by
> setting CPP
Hi arojas,
Which PKGBUILD did you use? Where I search on the arch repo, I only see
SAGE-5.8 (in community) and SAGE-5.10-devel in AUR.
Where I downloaded the source (SAGE-5.9) and fellowed your suggestion by
setting CPP to /usr/bin/cpp, I got the exact same error: "bits/c++config.h:
No such
El jueves, 9 de mayo de 2013 20:21:43 UTC+2, Pong escribió:
> Hi Leif
>
>
> I haven't tried any of those. In fact, I just reinstall SAGE 5.8.1 which
> is available on the Arch community. Does anyone here know who is maintaining
> that package? It would be great if we get an update from the
Hi Leif
I haven't tried any of those. In fact, I just reinstall SAGE 5.8.1
which is available on the Arch community. Does anyone here know who is
maintaining that package? It would be great if we get an update from there
soon as well.
I will give your suggestion a try and hopefully I l
Pong wrote:
Oh... I see. I am ignorant on what various flags mean.
Did you try to build the stand-alone/vanilla Singular configured with
'--with-apint=gmp'?
Let me summarize my problems and see if I get them right:
1) my gcc compiler confuses c and c++ programs.
I don't think so, at lea
Hum so does someone know of a fix?
On May 6, 2013 8:46 PM, "François Bissey"
wrote:
> On Mon, 06 May 2013 20:39:26 Pong wrote:
> > Alright, I did a fresh compile with SAGE_INSTALL_GCC set to yes. This
> time
> > the compilation failed at gcc.
> > It only installed a few things before it hit gcc (
On Mon, 06 May 2013 20:39:26 Pong wrote:
> Alright, I did a fresh compile with SAGE_INSTALL_GCC set to yes. This time
> the compilation failed at gcc.
> It only installed a few things before it hit gcc (e.g. Singular was not
> complied)
>
> And here are the last few words it said before the crash:
yes.
Francois
On 7/05/2013, at 3:41, "Pong" mailto:wypon...@gmail.com>>
wrote:
On Monday, May 6, 2013 2:19:47 AM UTC-7, François wrote:
On 06/05/13 17:24, Pong wrote:
> Oh... I see. I am ignorant on what various flags mean.
>
> Let me summarize my problems and see if I get them right:
>
> 1) my
On Monday, May 6, 2013 2:19:47 AM UTC-7, François wrote:
>
> On 06/05/13 17:24, Pong wrote:
> > Oh... I see. I am ignorant on what various flags mean.
> >
> > Let me summarize my problems and see if I get them right:
> >
> > 1) my gcc compiler confuses c and c++ programs.
> > 2) I want to sol
On 06/05/13 17:24, Pong wrote:
> Oh... I see. I am ignorant on what various flags mean.
>
> Let me summarize my problems and see if I get them right:
>
> 1) my gcc compiler confuses c and c++ programs.
> 2) I want to solve 1) by forcing sage to use the gcc-4.7.2. but the
> problem is that the cop
Oh... I see. I am ignorant on what various flags mean.
Let me summarize my problems and see if I get them right:
1) my gcc compiler confuses c and c++ programs.
2) I want to solve 1) by forcing sage to use the gcc-4.7.2. but the problem
is that the copy of gcc that come with sage won't build fro
Pong wrote:
Report: buliding Singular by itself seems to be completely fine.
./configure
make -j4
results in
Well, you'd have to (at least) configure with '--with-apint=gmp' as well
(cf. Sage's spkg-install script).
-leif
/usr/bin/install -c -s solve_IP
/home/pong/Downloads/Singula
Report: buliding Singular by itself seems to be completely fine.
./configure
make -j4
results in
/usr/bin/install -c -s solve_IP
/home/pong/Downloads/Singular-3-1-5/x86_64-Linux
/usr/bin/install -c -s change_cost
/home/pong/Downloads/Singular-3-1-5/x86_64-Linux
/usr/bin/install -c -s
Well... it said "prerelease"
gcc version 4.8.0 20130502 (prerelease) (GCC)
I see now, obviously 4.8.0 is still a prerelease...
Just out of curiousity, I have just downloaded a copy of Singular-3.1.5
from the offical site and see if it compiles on my machine.
Will keep everyone posted.
On Sund
On Sun, 05 May 2013 16:07:11 Pong wrote:
> Nope. I got the exact seem error. See the lastest log attached.
>
> One more thing that puzzled me is that the arch users just got an update
> (including my machine) on gcc. So it's not the pre-release any more.
> ~ [i]> pacman -Qi gcc
> Name :
Pong wrote:
Hi leif, thank you for looking into this issue as well.
Attached is my cf_gmp.h after a failed build attempt with sage -f
singular-3-1-5.p7
Well, that version doesn't include bits/c++config.h. (It doesn't have
as many lines as the previous one where the error occurred, and at firs
leif wrote:
The problem is not that a C compiler is used to compile weight0.c, but
that cf_gmp.h includes in the first place.
(Although bits/c++config.h is valid C code as well, it's not in the
[C++] include path if you compile a file as C code which includes it.)
But it seems ArchLinux's brok
Francois Bissey wrote:
On 05/05/13 21:12, Wai Yan Pong wrote:
Hum I see what you are saying. Well my case is a bit tricky but I think
I'm not alone. I am using Archlinux, so there is not g++ separately. And
gcc decides whether the program as a C or C++ program in the following way.
|gcc file.C
26 matches
Mail list logo
