Opened 10 years ago

Last modified 10 years ago

#13319 closed defect

Python 2.7.3.p0 does not build on Cygwin. — at Version 11

Reported by: jpflori Owned by: tbd
Priority: major Milestone: sage-5.6
Component: porting: Cygwin Keywords: pythong cygwin spkg
Cc: kcrisman, dimpase Merged in:
Authors: Jean-Pierre Flori Reviewers:
Report Upstream: Fixed upstream, but not in a stable release. Work issues:
Branch: Commit:
Dependencies: Stopgaps:

Status badges

Description (last modified by jpflori)

Some patches posterior to Python 2.7.3 are needed to build on Cygwin. Namely fixes from the issues 9665, 14437, 14438 on Python issue tracker.

Use the spkg available at: http://perso.telecom-paristech.fr/~flori/sage/python-2.7.3.p1.spkg or http://www.infres.enst.fr/~flori/sage/python-2.7.3.p1.spkg

Change History (12)

comment:1 Changed 10 years ago by jpflori

  • Authors set to Jean-Pierre Flori
  • Cc kcrisman dimpase added
  • Description modified (diff)
  • Status changed from new to needs_review

Some further details:

  • issue 9665 is still opened (and as it is back from 2010 and was not modified since, I doubt it will be closed any time soon unless one of us takes action);
  • issue 14337 has been merged, but unfortunately after the Python 2.7.3 release;
  • issue 14338 has been closed as invalid and marked as a Cygwin, rather than Python, bug, why not... but what's sure is that it prevents to build Python on Cygwin.

The patche we need from 9665 modifies configure.in (the other patch is just issue 14337). In order to take it into account in the configure script, I ran "autoreconf -i" which also modified the configure script in several other places, but in a seemingly harmless way. It is mainly because I used a newer version of autotools than the one originally used for the Python 2.7.3 release, and autotools decided inbetween to prefix some variables names with "ac_". A somehow less invasive solution would be to directly patch the configure script, but I'm less inclined to do so than properly patching configure.in.

The updated spkg is available at: http://perso.telecom-paristech.fr/~flori/sage/python-2.7.3.p1.spkg

It builds correctly on Ubuntu 12.04 64 bits and is currently building on my Cygwin 1.7.16 on Windows 7 64 bits (it failed a first time but because of memory exhaustion which I often get while using Cygwin or MinGW).

I've search trac for a more recent spkg than the 2.7.3.p0 but did not find anything. If I missed some tickets including such an spkg, please let me know or directly rebase the patches proposed here.

comment:2 Changed 10 years ago by dimpase

this patch (apparently) allowed Python spkg to build on my Cygwin installation (on 32-bit Win 7). Good!

The next spkg, mercurial, failed with a typical fork() trouble. But this is probably not related. I guess now I need to rebaseall, including newly created dlls...

comment:3 Changed 10 years ago by jpflori

Same for me about mercurial. I'm posting my progress on the CygwinPort page on a freshly installed Cygwin 1.7.16 on Windows 7 64 bits for Sage 5.2.

comment:4 Changed 10 years ago by jpflori

  • Keywords spkg added

comment:5 Changed 10 years ago by jdemeyer

  • Status changed from needs_review to needs_work

Could you please use my autotools spkg to regenerate configure and friends with the same version as the original?

comment:6 Changed 10 years ago by jdemeyer

Also, for timestamp reasons, the file configure must be patched after configure.in. This means that, either you create a separate patch for configure.in and for configure, or you manually reverse the order of the patches in the .patch file.

comment:7 Changed 10 years ago by jpflori

I've updated the spkg after using your autotools package and manually reversed the order of configure and configure.in in the parch file. The spkg diff will follow shortly.

Changed 10 years ago by jpflori

spkg diff, for review only

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

  • Status changed from needs_work to needs_review

One can remark that, although a quite similar version of autoconf was used, there are still of useless changes to the configure script... but much less than before.

comment:9 Changed 10 years ago by dimpase

  • Status changed from needs_review to positive_review

looks OK to me.

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

Replying to jpflori:

One can remark that, although a quite similar version of autoconf was used, there are still of useless changes to the configure script... but much less than before.

Indeed. This is likely because the previous configure script was created by a distribution-patched autoconf with the same version number, but some patches added.

comment:11 Changed 10 years ago by jpflori

  • Description modified (diff)
Note: See TracTickets for help on using tickets.