#9226 closed defect (fixed)
README.txt says " Sage builds with GCC >= 3.x" but it does NOT
| Reported by: | drkirkby | Owned by: | mvngu |
|---|---|---|---|
| Priority: | blocker | Milestone: | sage-4.5.2 |
| Component: | documentation | Keywords: | |
| Cc: | Merged in: | sage-4.5.2 | |
| Authors: | David Kirkby | Reviewers: | Robert Bradshaw |
| Report Upstream: | N/A | Work issues: | |
| Branch: | Commit: | ||
| Dependencies: | Stopgaps: |
Description (last modified by )
The title pretty much says it all. There is no way Sage will build with any gcc < 4.0.1. The 'prereq' script will stop any attempt and even if you bypass that stop (by setting the appropriate environment variable), Sage will not build
I've attached a revised README.txt, which addresses this and
- The fact gcc, g++ and gfortran need to be the same versions.
- Spelling change of Sparc -> SPARC.
- Better information about what does and does not work on Solaris.
Attachments (2)
Change History (15)
Changed 9 years ago by
comment:1 Changed 9 years ago by
- Status changed from new to needs_review
comment:2 Changed 9 years ago by
- Status changed from needs_review to positive_review
comment:3 Changed 9 years ago by
- Reviewers set to Robert Bradshaw
comment:4 Changed 9 years ago by
- Merged in set to sage-4.5.2.alpha1
- Resolution set to fixed
- Status changed from positive_review to closed
Replaced SAGE_ROOT/README.txt with the README.txt here in 4.5.2.alpha1.
comment:5 Changed 9 years ago by
- Merged in sage-4.5.2.alpha1 deleted
- Priority changed from major to blocker
- Resolution fixed deleted
- Status changed from closed to new
comment:6 Changed 9 years ago by
- Description modified (diff)
comment:7 Changed 9 years ago by
- Status changed from new to needs_review
comment:8 Changed 9 years ago by
- Status changed from needs_review to positive_review
I just tried to correct a couple of typos in the description and managed to remove the positive review. I've restored it now.
comment:9 Changed 9 years ago by
- Merged in set to sage-4.5.2
- Resolution set to fixed
- Status changed from positive_review to closed
comment:10 follow-up: ↓ 11 Changed 9 years ago by
It's unfortunate that this is so, because there is still a problem, namely that
PPC Apple Mac OS X 10.4.x, 10.5.x, 10.6.x
is by definition wrong, since 10.6.x will only work on Intel chips. Also see other README.txt updates lurking on Trac, such as #7484, which also fixes #8106; #6055 perhaps should be closed, while #5505 I'm less clear on; #5339 seems closable as dup; #3131 perhaps is not relevant, but while I'm listing all of them...
comment:11 in reply to: ↑ 10 ; follow-up: ↓ 12 Changed 9 years ago by
Replying to kcrisman:
It's unfortunate that this is so, because there is still a problem, namely that
PPC Apple Mac OS X 10.4.x, 10.5.x, 10.6.xis by definition wrong, since 10.6.x will only work on Intel chips. Also see other README.txt updates lurking on Trac, such as #7484, which also fixes #8106; #6055 perhaps should be closed, while #5505 I'm less clear on; #5339 seems closable as dup; #3131 perhaps is not relevant, but while I'm listing all of them...
I would recommend that anyone currently working on fixing the SAGE_ROOT README.txt, the spkg/standard/deps file, or any of the other crucial files that are not under revision control...please take a look at #9433, which will put these files into a Mercurial repository, and make dealing with them reasonable, instead of the current mess. #9433 should actually be pretty easy to review.
comment:12 in reply to: ↑ 11 ; follow-up: ↓ 13 Changed 9 years ago by
I would recommend that anyone currently working on fixing the SAGE_ROOT README.txt, the spkg/standard/deps file, or any of the other crucial files that are not under revision control...please take a look at #9433, which will put these files into a Mercurial repository, and make dealing with them reasonable, instead of the current mess. #9433 should actually be pretty easy to review.
Yes, I just didn't mention this one since it was a meta-ticket. I don't feel technically capable of it (not knowing ins and outs of hg), otherwise I would have done so weeks ago :(
comment:13 in reply to: ↑ 12 Changed 9 years ago by
Replying to kcrisman:
I would recommend that anyone currently working on fixing the SAGE_ROOT README.txt, the spkg/standard/deps file, or any of the other crucial files that are not under revision control...please take a look at #9433, which will put these files into a Mercurial repository, and make dealing with them reasonable, instead of the current mess. #9433 should actually be pretty easy to review.
Yes, I just didn't mention this one since it was a meta-ticket. I don't feel technically capable of it (not knowing ins and outs of hg), otherwise I would have done so weeks ago :(
Same here. I don't feel able to review it. If Dan believes it is an easy review, perhaps he could consider doing it if he has time, as at least two of us don't feel able to do it, and nobody else has stepped up. Yet I am one who agrees this would be a useful addition to Sage. The current system for such files is a bit silly.
Dave
Suggested revised README.txt