On Mon, Sep 02, 2019 at 04:40:56PM +0300, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
> libLfunction is a change done by Sage, upstream had Lfunction.
> Also, the dylib is called libLfunction.
Okay, then Lfunction sounds like the right thing. At the same time, I find
it a bit too generic (a reproach to make to upstream, then).
Actually we used Sage as upstream, since the real upstream seems to have
disappeared. Looking again at my code, it has almost more comments
complaining about the messy state of affairs than actual functional
There is also this:
;; Add --std=c++11 to be compatible with the "auto" keyword
;; introduced by lcalc-using-namespace-std.patch.
Are these kinds of changes really necessary?
And so far our package does not use pari-gp as an input, I just wanted
to get closer to a compiling Sage. So I am unsure how functional our lcalc