Opened 9 years ago

Closed 8 years ago

Last modified 8 years ago

#12102 closed enhancement (fixed)

Make bzip2 a standard (instead of base) package

Reported by: jdemeyer Owned by: tbd
Priority: major Milestone: sage-5.0
Component: packages: standard Keywords:
Cc: Merged in: sage-5.0.beta11
Authors: Jeroen Demeyer Reviewers: John Palmieri
Report Upstream: N/A Work issues:
Branch: Commit:
Dependencies: #12479, #10492, #12602 Stopgaps:

Description (last modified by jdemeyer)

Now that we have support for gzipped Sage packages (#12602), we can easily make bzip2 a standard package instead of a base package. This will further the goal of decreasing the number of base packages (ideally to zero), see also #12631.

spkg: http://boxen.math.washington.edu/home/jdemeyer/spkg/bzip2-1.0.6.spkg (bzip2 compressed, to be converted to gzip when merged)

apply 12102_bzip2_standard.patch to SAGE_ROOT.

delete the untracked file spkg/base/bzip2-1.0.5.tar.gz.

Attachments (1)

12102_bzip2_standard.patch (3.7 KB) - added by jdemeyer 9 years ago.

Download all attachments as: .zip

Change History (18)

comment:1 Changed 9 years ago by jdemeyer

  • Dependencies set to #12602

comment:2 Changed 9 years ago by jdemeyer

  • Authors set to Jeroen Demeyer
  • Dependencies changed from #12602 to #12479, #10492, #12602

comment:3 Changed 9 years ago by jdemeyer

  • Description modified (diff)

comment:4 Changed 9 years ago by jdemeyer

  • Description modified (diff)

comment:5 Changed 9 years ago by jdemeyer

  • Description modified (diff)

Changed 9 years ago by jdemeyer

comment:6 Changed 8 years ago by jdemeyer

  • Description modified (diff)

comment:7 Changed 8 years ago by jhpalmieri

Is this ready for review?

comment:8 Changed 8 years ago by jdemeyer

If you want, it's ready for review. But to be honest, I haven't really tested it.

comment:9 Changed 8 years ago by jdemeyer

  • Status changed from new to needs_review

comment:10 follow-up: Changed 8 years ago by jhpalmieri

I see that the old package compiles with commands like this:

gcc -fPIC -c blocksort.c

while the new one compiles with

gcc -fPIC -O2 -g  -c blocksort.c

-O2 seems like a fine idea, but do we need -g? I don't know much about debugging: since this is a pretty well-established package, there aren't like to be bugs in it, so can we omit -g, or would that mess up debugging for other parts of Sage? Should we add a test for SAGE_DEBUG so that we at least have the option to turn it off? I notice that the new libbz2.a is more than twice the size of the old one, at least on sage.math.

comment:11 in reply to: ↑ 10 Changed 8 years ago by jdemeyer

Replying to jhpalmieri:

-O2 seems like a fine idea, but do we need -g?

I thought it was "standard practice" to compile all Sage packages using -g (regardless of SAGE_DEBUG). With GCC, files only get larger when compiled with debug information, but the code is exactly the same. So programs should run equally fast with or without debugging information (except for the I/O effects of having larger files).

comment:12 Changed 8 years ago by jhpalmieri

  • Reviewers set to John Palmieri
  • Status changed from needs_review to positive_review

It looks to me as though SAGE_DEBUG is used somewhat inconsistently. Since William (among others) is concerned about the size of the Sage distribution, I think at some point we should consider not using -g. Maybe don't use it for bdists? Anyway, this is not something that should be decided here, and I'm happy with the changes in this ticket.

comment:13 Changed 8 years ago by jdemeyer

Let me mention that I also tested upgrading from sage-4.5 and sage-4.8, no problems.

comment:14 Changed 8 years ago by jdemeyer

  • Description modified (diff)

comment:15 Changed 8 years ago by jdemeyer

  • Merged in set to sage-5.0.beta11
  • Resolution set to fixed
  • Status changed from positive_review to closed

comment:16 follow-up: Changed 8 years ago by jhpalmieri

By the way, the file spkg/base/README.txt should be modified to reflect this change. Is the directory spkg/base going to disappear altogether soon? If so, we don't have to worry about this.

comment:17 in reply to: ↑ 16 Changed 8 years ago by jdemeyer

Replying to jhpalmieri:

By the way, the file spkg/base/README.txt should be modified to reflect this change.

Going to do this in #12631.

Is the directory spkg/base going to disappear altogether soon?

Probably not. Eventually, I would like prereq to become a top-level ./configure for Sage, but I haven't thought nearly enough about this to see how that would work.

Note: See TracTickets for help on using tickets.