Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

update README.txt to reflect what platforms we currently supporting building sage with #5339

Closed
williamstein opened this issue Feb 22, 2009 · 4 comments

Comments

@williamstein
Copy link
Contributor

CC: @sagetrac-drkirkby

Component: distribution

Issue created by migration from https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/5339

@sagetrac-mabshoff
Copy link
Mannequin

sagetrac-mabshoff mannequin commented Mar 1, 2009

comment:1

Better luck in Sage 3.4.1.

Cheers,

Michael

@sagetrac-mabshoff sagetrac-mabshoff mannequin modified the milestones: sage-3.4, sage-3.4.1 Mar 1, 2009
@sagetrac-mabshoff
Copy link
Mannequin

sagetrac-mabshoff mannequin commented Apr 29, 2009

comment:2

This is also relevant (from David Kirkby):

Looking at the top level README.txt in sage-3.4.2.alpha0, there are a
couple of things about Solaris of note. The first is minor - the second
less so.

1) At one point its called Solaris, and another SOLARIS. After finding
'Solaris' at the top, I did a search (using vi as the editor) and found
little reference to it. Later I see the operating system referred to as
SOLARIS. It might be worth using the same case, or at least referring to
it as 'Solaris' in the 'SOLARIS' section, in case someone does a
case-sensitive search.

2) More importantly, one reads:
-----------
    SOLARIS:
      It is reportedly possible, but not recommended yet (see below).
      A fully supported port is planned.
-----------

But there is NOTHING below that point in the README.txt about Solaris -
despite the "see below" in there.

It would be worth either putting what information was planned about
Solaris in the README.txt, or making a 'Solaris.txt' with what
information is needed. Obviously a link to the tool chain would be worth
putting. 

@qed777
Copy link
Mannequin

qed777 mannequin commented Aug 7, 2010

comment:3

Should I close this as a "duplicate" of #9487?

@sagetrac-drkirkby
Copy link
Mannequin

sagetrac-drkirkby mannequin commented Aug 7, 2010

comment:4

Replying to @qed777:

Should I close this as a "duplicate" of #9487?

Yes, that seems reasonable. Technically #9487 is a duplicate of this, but there's more useful information on #9487. This has also at least partially been fixed by another ticket, so I would close it.

Dave

@qed777 qed777 mannequin added r: duplicate and removed p: major / 3 labels Aug 7, 2010
@qed777 qed777 mannequin closed this as completed Aug 7, 2010
@qed777 qed777 mannequin removed this from the sage-4.5.2 milestone Aug 7, 2010
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant