base packages except configure should be standard; gcc optional

[jdemeyer]

There is really no reason to make a difference between base and standard packages, except for the only truly "base" package configure. And gcc isn't needed for Sage, so it should be optional.

Also make various changes to #18431:

1. Remove initial spaces from dependencies.
2. Build prereq before other packages, remove explicit dependencies on prereq.
3. Fix this bug: cat >&5 "# Standard packages"
4. Compute make variable name and version in filtered_packages_list function.
5. List all packages (not only standard) in build/Makefile.
6. Beautify the listing of all standard package, use a make variable instead of a new target.
7. Remove superfluous rule for $(INST)/$(SAGE_MP_LIBRARY)

Depends on #18431

CC: @nathanncohen

Component: build

Branch/Commit: u/jdemeyer/base_packages_except_configure_should_be_standard @ f83b0c4

Reviewer: Jeroen Demeyer, Nathann Cohen

Issue created by migration from https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/18441

[nathanncohen]

comment:4

Hello Jeroen! I obviously have nothing against what you plan on doing, and I will probably give you a confirmation that what you want to do makes sense:

the reason why I created this 'base' category is that indeed not all packages were listed in the "Standard packages" list in the (former) build/install script. Some, like configure, bzip2 and others, were handled differently. In particular, all standard packages appear in the 'all-sage' Makefile rule, while the base ones do not.

That's the only reason. I know that I do not know enough about how this all works to change the Makefile's behaviour, so I kept trying to write scripts that generate a Makefile equivalent to the former version. Thus 'basic' packages, which you can of course remove as you know what you are doing far better than me.

Nathann

[jdemeyer]

comment:5

Replying to @nathanncohen:

Hello Jeroen! I obviously have nothing against what you plan on doing, and I will probably give you a confirmation that what you want to do makes sense:

the reason why I created this 'base' category is that indeed not all packages were listed in the "Standard packages" list in the (former) build/install script.

That doesn't really matter. If those packages are dependencies of a standard package, they will be built anyway. So adding them to the all-sage rule doesn't make a difference.

[nathanncohen]

comment:6

Oh, cool. That will simplify the code indeed, then.

[jdemeyer]

Branch: u/jdemeyer/base_packages_except_configure_should_be_standard

[sagetrac-git]

Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. This was a forced push. New commits:

4de8e37

Various changes to build system

[sagetrac-git]

Commit: 4de8e37

[sagetrac-git]

Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:

f83b0c4

Correct variable name

[sagetrac-git]

Changed commit from 4de8e37 to f83b0c4

[nathanncohen]

Reviewer: Nathann Cohen

[nathanncohen]

comment:14

Okay that's smart: we do not have to differentiate so often the standard/optional packages, we can just generate the rules and if some are never called, well, we do not have to care. Much cleaner code as a result, thanks!

Was it in 'needs_review'? If so, you can switch it to postive_review.

Nathann

[jdemeyer]

comment:15

I'm still testing the ticket. I am currently doing a SAGE_INSTALL_GCC=yes build and if that works, I'll set the ticket to positive_review.

[nathanncohen]

comment:16

Works for me!

Nathann

[jdemeyer]

comment:17

Dupe of #18431.

[jdemeyer]

Changed reviewer from Nathann Cohen to Jeroen Demeyer, Nathann Cohen

[jdemeyer]

Changed author from Jeroen Demeyer to none