[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: GSoC project: make the Sage build system more distribution friendly

Sorry, there were a few mails that missed the list:

On 09.04.2013 09:49, Felix Salfelder wrote:
> Hi
> thanks for establishing this!
> i can imagine applying for that project. at least i'll have some time
> left in summer, as i'm on parental leave and i found a nursery...
> i'd like to discuss the scope and potential solutions for that problem a
> bit.
> a proper build system for sage ("the library") with the usual dependency
> checks seems neccesary (if not sufficient) for distributions. i can think of
> a way to implement this (probably using autotools) and put it into a
> debian package. such a build system won't yet get me much closer to the
> project deliverable "support for choosing a set of dependencies within
> sage" without messing a lot with sage ("the operating system").
> a build system for sage ("the library") could be used to switch between
> system headers/libraries and stuff installed to /some/sage/prefix.
> in order to make use of these switches from sage ("the operating
> system"), the toplevel install script must be able process switches like
> --with-ntl=/usr/include to pass to the spkg compilation, which in turn
> means *all* spkgs must understand such flags (doesn't it?).
> it seems to be more work to fix sage ("the operating sytstem") than to
> properly ship sage ("the library") within an already working
> distribution (= properly checking for functionality/applied patches).
> these checks however are difficult to maintain, if upstream sage doesn't
> use them...
> to me, these problems (fixing sage vs. distributing sage library) seem
> independent enough to have two GSoC projects. i have a rough idea of
> what gentoo-prefix is doing and of Julien's pruner script, but i don't
> see a solution there. what is your favourite way out?
> regards
> felix

Reply to: