I upgraded from XCode 2.2 to 2.4.1, and this seems to fix the problem
(although I don't really understand why).
It compiles fine now and all tests pass.
I will close the ticket now.
david
On Aug 14, 2007, at 3:46 PM, David Harvey wrote:
> Something goes wrong in LAPACK build:
>
> sage-spkg
On Aug 16, 2007, at 12:38 PM, William Stein wrote:
> I don't know, but you might want to try this tarball:
>
> http://sage.math.washington.edu/lj/sage-2.8.a.tar
>
> This has the option of doing
>export SAGE_FORTRAN=/path/to/any/fortran
> etc and many other build improvements.
> Please give
On Aug 16, 2007, at 11:07 AM, David Harvey wrote:
>
>
> On Aug 16, 2007, at 12:35 AM, Justin C. Walker wrote:
>
Has the included fortran binary been tested on other similar
systems?
>>>
>>> Yes, it works fine on fermat.math.harvard.edu, and I think on Justin
>>> Walker's G5.
>>
>> Yup.
On 8/16/07, David Harvey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Aug 16, 2007, at 12:35 AM, Justin C. Walker wrote:
> >>> Has the included fortran binary been tested on other similar
> >>> systems?
> >>
> >> Yes, it works fine on fermat.math.harvard.edu, and I think on Justin
> >> Walker's G5.
> >
> > Yup
On Aug 16, 2007, at 12:35 AM, Justin C. Walker wrote:
>>> Has the included fortran binary been tested on other similar
>>> systems?
>>
>> Yes, it works fine on fermat.math.harvard.edu, and I think on Justin
>> Walker's G5.
>
> Yup. SAGE 2.8 builds and passes 'make test' on my G5 (both for me
On Aug 15, 2007, at 9:21 PM, William Stein wrote:
>
> On 8/15/07, David Harvey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Well the included binary works at least to this extent:
>>
>> ~/sage-2.8/local/bin
>> george$ ./sage_fortran.bin --version
>> G95 (GCC 4.0.3 (g95 0.91!) Jun 4 2007)
>> Copyright (C) 2002
On 8/15/07, David Harvey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well the included binary works at least to this extent:
>
> ~/sage-2.8/local/bin
> george$ ./sage_fortran.bin --version
> G95 (GCC 4.0.3 (g95 0.91!) Jun 4 2007)
> Copyright (C) 2002-2005 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
>
> Let me try installing
On Aug 15, 2007, at 10:08 PM, William Stein wrote:
>> Here's another failure which I don't believe is scipy-related, but
>> might be a clue:
>
> That is fortran related. It fails for the same reason that lapack
> woulnd't work for you -- the g95 fortran binary we included for
> SAGE doesn't wor
On 8/15/07, David Harvey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Aug 15, 2007, at 4:03 PM, William Stein wrote:
>
> > Just for debuging purposes, could you do the following and
> > report what happens?
> >
> > Fake lapack-20070723 for now, e.g., do
> > cd SAGE_ROOT
> > touch spkg/installed/lapack-2007
On Aug 15, 2007, at 4:03 PM, William Stein wrote:
> Just for debuging purposes, could you do the following and
> report what happens?
>
> Fake lapack-20070723 for now, e.g., do
> cd SAGE_ROOT
> touch spkg/installed/lapack-20070723
> Continue the build with "make" and do the same as above
> f
David,
Just for debuging purposes, could you do the following and
report what happens?
Fake lapack-20070723 for now, e.g., do
cd SAGE_ROOT
touch spkg/installed/lapack-20070723
Continue the build with "make" and do the same as above
for whatever else fails. You'll just cut off the connected
On Aug 14, 2007, at 4:09 PM, Justin C. Walker wrote:
>> Something goes wrong in LAPACK build:
>>
>> sage-spkg installed/lapack-20070723 2>&1
> [snip]
>> make[2]: *** [lapack_install] Error 126
>> Error compiling lapack.
>
> A shot in the dark: can you check your install log for lines
> containin
On Aug 14, 2007, at 12:46 , David Harvey wrote:
>
> Something goes wrong in LAPACK build:
>
> sage-spkg installed/lapack-20070723 2>&1
[snip]
> make[2]: *** [lapack_install] Error 126
> Error compiling lapack.
A shot in the dark: can you check your install log for lines
containing "fork:"? I
13 matches
Mail list logo
