On Oct 7, 10:20 am, "Georg S. Weber" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Hi,
Hi,
I have been away for a while, so I am late to pipe in here: The
decision to just plain out refuse to build with MacPorts and/or Fink
in path was the result of tracking down a large number of mysterious
build issues over
Hi,
a solution which "removes unwanted directories from the paths(s)"
would use something like (untested! I just googled
http://www.faqs.org/docs/abs/HTML/string-manipulation.html):
path_to_clean = "$PATH"
dylibpath_to_clean = "$DYLD_LIBRARY_PATH"
${path_to_clean//"/opt/local"*:/""}
${dylibpath
I think the best solution, if possible, is to re-adjust the paths to
remove macports/fink to build. However, as a short term solution,
rather than just killing the build, maybe it should be a prompt
warning the user that it might be a problem, and asking if they want
to continue anyways. I
Hi
Sorry I've been unable to participate in the discussion, and I
unfortunately won't get any time to look at for a while (we're moving
city and jobs) so I won't say much because I won't be doing much for a
couple of months.
Really, my only concern is that sage compiles out of the box for
OK.
I reopened the corresponding trac ticket #4125 (that went into Sage
3.1.2.rc4), and asked for that patch to be reverted.
The underlying problem might have been addressed anyway with the patch
in trac ticket #4127 (that went into Sage 3.1.3.alpha0), but Michael
Abshoff and David Philp should
On Oct 5, 2008, at 11:38 , William Stein wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 5, 2008 at 6:52 AM, David Harvey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > wrote:
>>
>> On Oct 5, 2008, at 5:32 AM, Justin C. Walker wrote:
>>> On Oct 5, 2008, at 02:11 , David Philp wrote:
>>>
> Would it be excessively uncivilised to *automatically
Hi,
it is relatively easy to include workarounds in the script machinery,
and for DYLD_LIBRARY_PATH this should already be the case.
The difficult thing is to test, whether the problems users report
every now and then do really disappear. It seems that none of the Sage
developers has had these p
On Sun, Oct 5, 2008 at 6:52 AM, David Harvey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Oct 5, 2008, at 5:32 AM, Justin C. Walker wrote:
>
>> On Oct 5, 2008, at 02:11 , David Philp wrote:
>>
Would it be excessively uncivilised to *automatically* change the
path during the build process?
>>>
On Oct 5, 2008, at 5:32 AM, Justin C. Walker wrote:
> On Oct 5, 2008, at 02:11 , David Philp wrote:
>
>>> Would it be excessively uncivilised to *automatically* change the
>>> path during the build process?
>>
>> Well, the kind of people who will come across it will be capable of
>> changing
On Oct 5, 2008, at 02:11 , David Philp wrote:
>> Would it be excessively uncivilised to *automatically* change the
>> path during the build process?
>
> Well, the kind of people who will come across it will be capable of
> changing their own path---and maybe sensitive. And, it might require
>
> Would it be excessively uncivilised to *automatically* change the
> path during the build process?
Well, the kind of people who will come across it will be capable of
changing their own path---and maybe sensitive. And, it might require
root permissions.
D
> >
--~--~-~--~-
11 matches
Mail list logo
