Solaris - what do we expect?
Dr. David Kirkby
circumstances, there are 8 possibilities that need to be considered.
1) Build as 32-bit gcc on SPARC
2) Build as 64-bit gcc on SPARC
3) Build as 32-bit with Sun's compiler on SPARC
4) Build as 64-bit with Sun's compiler on SPARC
5) Build as 32-bit gcc on x64
6) Build as 64-bit gcc on x64
7) Build as 32-bit with Sun's compiler on x86
8) Build as 64-bit with Sun's compiler on x64
(It should be noted, that the solving the first 4 will solve all of
them, as anything that builds on SPARC will *normally* build on x86.
There are exceptions of course).
IMHO, before a new package in added to the Sage standard distribution,
it should build under all these 8. Otherwise, it makes porting to a true
64-bit version of Sage more and more difficult, as more and more
packages are added.
Of course, we can have a long-term aim of having a 64-bit version
building with the Sun compiler (the best solution for Solaris), but that
aim will get become less and less practical if packages are added which
don't build under these circumstances.
The cliquer pagckage, which is up for review
http://sagetrac.org/sage_trac/ticket/6681
certainly fails that, as the patched makefile has the line
CC=gcc
Hence I would be tempted to make that as 'with spgk, needs work', since
it makes some pretty fundamental assumptions which will not be valid.
Carlo Hamalainen
<david....@onetel.net> wrote:
> IMHO, before a new package in added to the Sage standard distribution,
> it should build under all these 8. Otherwise, it makes porting to a true
> 64-bit version of Sage more and more difficult, as more and more
> packages are added.
+1 to having Sage work on all 8 of those Solaris platforms.
--
Carlo Hamalainen
http://carlo-hamalainen.net
William Stein
But alas cliquer is already in Sage, and that ticket is titled:
"cliquer doesn't work in 64-bit OS X"
If the spkg fixes this problem and doesn't make things *worse* on
Solaris, it absolutely should get a positive review. Note that the
assuming "CC=gcc" was already in the original cliquer spkg. It is not
something added by that ticket.
If we were discussing including cliquer in the first place, I might
have a different opinion.
I encourage you to open your own ticket which is entitled "port
cliquer so that it builds with the Sun Studio compiler", then post a
patch there that addresses the problem you see.
William
Dr. David Kirkby
Fair enough.
In fact, cliquer presents problems on Solaris too. See the ticket I
created a couple of weeks ago.
http://sagetrac.org/sage_trac/ticket/6852
"cliquer-1.2 fails to build as it cant find Sun compiler (SCons issue)"
> If we were discussing including cliquer in the first place, I might
> have a different opinion.
So what would your thoughts be, if someone one to propose package X is
added, despite the fact it will not build on all of the following?
1) Build as 32-bit gcc on SPARC
2) Build as 64-bit gcc on SPARC
3) Build as 32-bit with Sun's compiler on SPARC
4) Build as 64-bit with Sun's compiler on SPARC
5) Build as 32-bit gcc on x64
6) Build as 64-bit gcc on x64
7) Build as 32-bit with Sun's compiler on x86
8) Build as 64-bit with Sun's compiler on x64
My belief is that if you are serious about a 64-bit port Solaris port,
then for *future* packages to be included in the standard distribution,
those should be a requirement. Otherwise, a 64-bit Solaris port will get
more and more difficult. Sorting out the packages which will not
currently build is difficult enough, but adding more packages would make
the task more and more difficult.
Of course, for optional packages, I don't see this as important.
> I encourage you to open your own ticket which is entitled "port
> cliquer so that it builds with the Sun Studio compiler", then post a
> patch there that addresses the problem you see.
>
> William
At the minute it wont build with gcc. A number of packages which use
SCons have this issue on Solaris, as a mixture of Sun and GNU compilers
tend to be used.
Dave