Opened 9 years ago
Closed 9 years ago
#13839 closed defect (fixed)
Let lrcalc build as a shared library on Cygwin.
Reported by: | jpflori | Owned by: | tbd |
---|---|---|---|
Priority: | major | Milestone: | sage-5.8 |
Component: | porting: Cygwin | Keywords: | lrcalc spkg cygwin |
Cc: | kcrisman, dimpase, nthiery | Merged in: | sage-5.8.beta1 |
Authors: | Jean-Pierre Flori | Reviewers: | Dmitrii Pasechnik |
Report Upstream: | None of the above - read trac for reasoning. | Work issues: | |
Branch: | Commit: | ||
Dependencies: | Stopgaps: |
Description (last modified by )
We need to pass the -no-undefined flag to libtool to build a shared library on Cygwin.
This was added to the 1.1.6 beta spkg distributed within Sage.
Following discussion with upstream it was decided that upstream would distribute an alternate autotools-based lrcalc, named lrcalc-sage, using the spkg modified sources.
The sources have been published upstream: http://www.math.rutgers.edu/~asbuch/lrcalc/
Therefore we stop tracking the src directory (which was not such a good idea) as it will be done upstream. (And as a consequence the diff attached here is quite big but the spkg does not grows.)
Try spkg at http://boxen.math.washington.edu/home/jpflori/lrcalc-1.1.6.spkg
Attachments (3)
Change History (19)
Changed 9 years ago by
comment:1 Changed 9 years ago by
- Description modified (diff)
- Keywords cygwin added
- Status changed from new to needs_review
New spkg uploaded.
I've rerun autoreconf with recent versions of the tool as the current state of the build system looked messy (and trying to use Jeroen smart spkg to produce a minimal diff complained a little and produced something broken).
It works fine on Linux, I won't be able to check on Cygwin before this night or tomorrow.
comment:2 Changed 9 years ago by
- Report Upstream changed from Reported upstream. No feedback yet. to None of the above - read trac for reasoning.
Upstream is ready to distribute an alternative official package using autotools, in addition to the original one using a custom build system.
So I propose to wait for everybody to be happy with the spkg here, send it upstream, repackage it "properly" here and merge it.
comment:3 Changed 9 years ago by
I checked the changes in the diff, and am happy with them. Feel free to set a positive review on my behalf (I'll be offline the next couple days).
comment:4 Changed 9 years ago by
Just a confirmation that this works as expected on Cygwin.
After our discussion with upstream, I will remove tracking of the src directory from the spkg and repost a new spkg. The src directory will now be tracked in a separate hg tree kept upstream.
comment:5 Changed 9 years ago by
- Cc kcrisman added; kcrusman removed
- Description modified (diff)
comment:6 Changed 9 years ago by
Wait, did this not work right? Or is this just an enhancement? (I know there is a parent ticket, but I forget the number.)
comment:7 Changed 9 years ago by
It was not build as shared before. I cannot say that the static archive produced was dysfunctional, I've not run the tests, so we can consider it an enhancement if not a defect.
comment:8 Changed 9 years ago by
- Description modified (diff)
comment:9 Changed 9 years ago by
- Status changed from needs_review to needs_work
- Work issues set to resyng wiht upstream
There have been some minimal changes to the tarball posted upstream so we need to resync.
comment:10 follow-up: ↓ 11 Changed 9 years ago by
- Status changed from needs_work to needs_review
- Work issues resyng wiht upstream deleted
I've resynced the src folder with the upstream tarball (mostly copyright additions and some autotools regenration stuff) and polished a little bit SPKG.txt.
Nicolas could you have a quick look at the spkg and put this to positive review as we planned a few monthes ago?
comment:11 in reply to: ↑ 10 Changed 9 years ago by
- Status changed from needs_review to needs_info
Replying to jpflori:
I've resynced the src folder with the upstream tarball (mostly copyright additions and some autotools regenration stuff) and polished a little bit SPKG.txt.
Nicolas could you have a quick look at the spkg and put this to positive review as we planned a few monthes ago?
It builds on cygwin, but fails tests. More precisely the following fails:
sage: from sage.libs.lcalc.lcalc_Lfunction import * --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ImportError Traceback (most recent call last) <ipython-input-1-015a4f363123> in <module>() ----> 1 from sage.libs.lcalc.lcalc_Lfunction import * ImportError: No such file or directory sage:
Is it just me?
comment:12 follow-up: ↓ 13 Changed 9 years ago by
Didn't you mess lcalc and lrcalc together?
comment:13 in reply to: ↑ 12 Changed 9 years ago by
- Status changed from needs_info to needs_review
Replying to jpflori:
Didn't you mess lcalc and lrcalc together?
oops, indeed. lrcalc works. Positive review.
comment:14 Changed 9 years ago by
- Status changed from needs_review to positive_review
comment:15 Changed 9 years ago by
- Milestone changed from sage-5.7 to sage-5.8
- Reviewers set to Dmitrii Pasechnik
comment:16 Changed 9 years ago by
- Merged in set to sage-5.8.beta1
- Resolution set to fixed
- Status changed from positive_review to closed
Spkg diff, for review only.