optional octave package

[William Stein]

Hi,

I tried to make an optional Octave-3.0.0 Sage spkg. I did *not* succeed. See

http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/1609

in case you're curious or want to try to pick up where I left off.

-- William

--
William Stein
Associate Professor of Mathematics
University of Washington
http://wstein.org

[mabshoff]

On Dec 27, 7:43 am, "William Stein" <wst...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I tried to make an optional Octave-3.0.0 Sage spkg. I did *not* succeed. See
>
> http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/1609
>
> in case you're curious or want to try to pick up where I left off.
>

Looking at the linker failure it indicates that you have a gcc 4.2
somewhere (maybe installed into $SAGE_LOCAL via my gcc-4.2.1 spkg :))
and the linker gets confused because it also links against a gcc 4.0.3
runtime. If that is the case I can have a closer look. It seems that
the build failed right at the end.

> -- William

Cheers,

Michael

[William Stein]

On Dec 27, 2007 12:00 AM, mabshoff

<Michael...@fsmath.mathematik.uni-dortmund.de> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Dec 27, 7:43 am, "William Stein" <wst...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I tried to make an optional Octave-3.0.0 Sage spkg. I did *not* succeed. See
> >
> > http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/1609
> >
> > in case you're curious or want to try to pick up where I left off.
> >
>
> Looking at the linker failure it indicates that you have a gcc 4.2
> somewhere (maybe installed into $SAGE_LOCAL via my gcc-4.2.1 spkg :))
> and the linker gets confused because it also links against a gcc 4.0.3
> runtime. If that is the case I can have a closer look. It seems that
> the build failed right at the end.

Thanks -- You're right; it's some sort of conflict like that though I
don't think it's
gcc-4.2 versus gcc-4.0.3, but gcc-4.2.1 versus gcc 4.0.3 stuff that's
coming from the g95 binaries that we ship with Sage. So probably
the way to build the Octave package would be to build Sage
using gfortran/gcc from your gcc-4.2.1.spkg, then build Octave.
I don't know if there is a way around having to do that, which basically
means no optional Octave package.

I don't think having an optional Octave package is critical since
it takes > 1 hour to build, and the Octave developers are extremely
good at making it easy to get Octave binaries for a wide range
of platforms.

-- William

[mabshoff]

On Dec 27, 8:14 am, "William Stein" <wst...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 27, 2007 12:00 AM, mabshoff
>
>
>
> <Michael.Absh...@fsmath.mathematik.uni-dortmund.de> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 27, 7:43 am, "William Stein" <wst...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Hi,
>
> > > I tried to make an optional Octave-3.0.0 Sage spkg. I did *not* succeed. See
>
> > > http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/1609
>
> > > in case you're curious or want to try to pick up where I left off.
>
> > Looking at the linker failure it indicates that you have a gcc 4.2
> > somewhere (maybe installed into $SAGE_LOCAL via my gcc-4.2.1 spkg :))
> > and the linker gets confused because it also links against a gcc 4.0.3
> > runtime. If that is the case I can have a closer look. It seems that
> > the build failed right at the end.
>
> Thanks -- You're right; it's some sort of conflict like that though I
> don't think it's
> gcc-4.2 versus gcc-4.0.3, but gcc-4.2.1 versus gcc 4.0.3 stuff that's
> coming from the g95 binaries that we ship with Sage.

Yep, it links "-lf95" for some reason. What I also consider odd is
that it links the cblas as well as the f77blas interfaces of ATLAS.

> So probably
> the way to build the Octave package would be to build Sage
> using gfortran/gcc from your gcc-4.2.1.spkg, then build Octave.
> I don't know if there is a way around having to do that, which basically
> means no optional Octave package.
>
> I don't think having an optional Octave package is critical since
> it takes > 1 hour to build, and the Octave developers are extremely
> good at making it easy to get Octave binaries for a wide range
> of platforms.

Pretty much.

> -- William

Cheers,

Michael