2012/5/4 Jerry James <loganjerry@xxxxxxxxx>: > On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 3:19 PM, Paulo César Pereira de Andrade > <paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andrade@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> /usr/include/givaro/givconfig.h:85:17: note: #pragma message: #warning >>> somebody nasty previously included <stdint.h> without >>> __STDC_LIMIT_MACROS :) >> >> This warning is all over the place, but so far, with the attached >> linbox-integer.patch on top of an installed system it does not >> fail earlier. But should get __STDC_LIMIT_MACROS defined >> before the first c++ code includes stdint.h ... > > Right, I had to do that with m4rie also. > >>> sage/libs/singular/singular.cpp:922:3: error: 'GFqDom' does not name a type >>> sage/libs/singular/singular.cpp: In function > > Also an issue with m4rie. The problem is that there is now a > namespace involved, so you have to change all instances of GFqDom to > Givaro::GFqDom. Yes, that was what I did, plus a few other Givaro:: added to the cython sources in sage-fedora-prepare.patch. >> The attached sage-fedora-prepare.patch is another work in progress >> patch, that should be helpful to give an idea of what needs to be patched >> to build with newer linbox, sytem cudd, m4ri, m4rie, etc. > > Okay, I'll look through it over the weekend. If you have parts that > you think are ready to go, the best thing to do is file a bug. That > way the patches won't get lost or forgotten. Right now I will prefer to avoid proposing incomplete patches over incomplete patches; I already submitted two patches to the sagemath trac, but specified that they were only to give an idea of the issue, and a call for feedback... >> Well, for singular, at least for now I think it is better to use exactly the >> version used by sagemath, as polybori 0.7.1 (sagemath) to 0.8.1 (fedora) >> appears to be going to require quite some work ... > > Okay, we can pursue that path. I am going to also give up in attempting to get sage-4.8 working, and work on sage-5.0-rc0, at least it already uses polybori-0.8.1, what makes life easier for me :-) But I am afraid it may not be easy to get all patches integrated, because too many components will need to be updated at once. But IMHO it is sage that is not playing so nice with upstream, letting several components versions rot, and making things harder for anybody willing to get sagemath working with system packages in a Linux distro. > Incidentally, looking at the latest Singular release, I see that it > can use flint if it is available. We have flint 1.6, which I kept > deliberately because Sage's flint package is at 1.5.0. However, > Singular wants flint 2.3! What should we do there? Is there a part > of sage that really needs the older flint version, or should I upgrade > it for Singular? I really hope flint 2.3 is api compatible with flint 1.5.0, but did not look at details so far. Well, in Mandriva, unless it was an already a system package, or maintained by somebody else, I always packaged the version required by sagemath, this way things are easier to handle. And still took me quite some time to have a usable package after getting all components working together. But I plan to submit a singular package for review shortly, unless you want to beat me to that, then, I suggest following the pattern of the Mandriva package to avoid too much problems with missing headers, as well as the sagemath patches: http://svn.mandriva.com/cgi-bin/viewvc.cgi/packages/cooker/singular/current/SPECS/singular.spec?view=markup > -- > Jerry James > http://www.jamezone.org/ > _______________________________________________ > scitech mailing list > scitech@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/scitech Paulo _______________________________________________ scitech mailing list scitech@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/scitech
