Add GNU patch 2.5.9 as a standard package.

[sagetrac-drkirkby]

As discussed here:

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sage-devel/browse_thread/thread/c566520374106df3

GNU patch is to be added as a standard package to Sage, to allow the use of 'patch' to be used to make patches, rather than to us 'cp' as now.

A new package may be found here

http://sage.math.washington.edu/home/jdemeyer/spkg/patch-2.5.9.spkg

In order to test this spkg, you could also try installing a new Sphinx spkg using patch: http://sage.math.washington.edu/home/jdemeyer/spkg/sphinx-1.0.4.p3.spkg (there is a corresponding .p1 using cp, see #10118 for the Sphinx upgrade).

Once this is done, the Sage Developers Guide will need to be updated to reflect a new method to create patches. A separate ticket #9419 has been opened for that.

CC: @nexttime

Component: build

Keywords: patch spkg

Author: David Kirkby, Jeroen Demeyer

Reviewer: David Kirkby, Jeroen Demeyer, John Cremona

Merged: sage-4.6.1.alpha2

Issue created by migration from https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/9418

[jdemeyer]

comment:3

Would you care to provide a spkg/deps patch so we can test that too?

[jdemeyer]

Work Issues: deps.patch

[jdemeyer]

Author: David Kirkby

[jdemeyer]

Changed keywords from none to patch spkg

[sagetrac-drkirkby]

Attachment: install.patch.gz

Patch for the install file in the sage_scripts-4.6.1.alpha1 package.

[sagetrac-drkirkby]

Attachment: install.gz

Replacement 'install' file

[sagetrac-drkirkby]

comment:5

I'm somewhat puzzled. There seems to be two copies of the install file - one in $SAGE_ROOT/spkg/install, and another in the sage-scripts package.

I think its only necessary to update the one in spkg, which makes me wonder whats the point of the one in the sage_scripts package. That has a repository, but there are uncommitted changes.

Dave

[sagetrac-drkirkby]

comment:6

I just realised, I ommitted to add PATCH as a dependancy of GAP. It's implied anyway, due to the fact readline, sage and termcap all depend on patch, and gap depends on all them. But I will correct it to make it clearer.

IMHO, it would be a lot nice if this file was sorted alphabetically a bit better, but I wont do that now.

[sagetrac-drkirkby]

Changed work issues from deps.patch to none

[sagetrac-drkirkby]

SPKG.txt

[sagetrac-drkirkby]

Attachment: SPKG.txt

spkg-check

[sagetrac-drkirkby]

Attachment: spkg-check.gz

Attachment: spkg-install.gz

spkg-install

[sagetrac-drkirkby]

comment:9

I realised I had not stuck a Mercurial repository in the package - I guess I was expecting people to want to make changes. But I've added one now. I don't know if its normal to add the SPKG.txt, spkg-install and spkg-check files to a new package, but I've them here anyway. No doubt Leif will find something wrong!

Dave

[sagetrac-drkirkby]

comment:10

What I meant to say was, I don't know if its normal to attach those 3 files to the ticket. But it can't do any harm I guess.

[sagetrac-drkirkby]

Remove the spkg-check file, as this version of patch has no self-tests that can be run.

[sagetrac-drkirkby]

comment:35

Attachment: 9418-remove-spkg-check-file.patch.gz

I've checked the version at

http://boxen.math.washington.edu/home/kirkby/older/patch-2.5.9.spkg

installs OK on

• OpenSolaris 06/2009 (my machine hawk).
• Solaris 10 SPARC (t2.math)
• Solaris 10 x86 (fulvia on skynet)
• Linux (sage.math)
• OS X 10.6 (bsd.math)

I can confirm that 2.6.1 did fail to install on Solaris 10 on SPARC (t2.math)

Dave

[sagetrac-drkirkby]

comment:36

We need info about if this builds OK on other operating systems.

I've changed from Needs Work -> Needs Info, as I think this should need no further changes.

Can someone confirm it works on OS X 10.4? If so, I think this will be ready for review.

Dave

[sagetrac-drkirkby]

Reviewer: David Kirkby, Jeroen Demeyer, John Cremona

[sagetrac-drkirkby]

Changed author from David Kirkby to David Kirkby, Jeroen Demeyer

[sagetrac-drkirkby]

Work Issues: Check on OS X 10.4

[jdemeyer]

comment:38

David's spkg works on OS X 10.4 (as expected)

[jdemeyer]

Changed work issues from Check on OS X 10.4 to none

[sagetrac-drkirkby]

comment:39

With this now checked on

• Linux (sage.math)
• OpenSolaris 06/2009 (my machine hawk).
• Solaris 10 SPARC (t2.math)
• Solaris 10 x86 (fulvia on skynet)
• OS X 10.6 (bsd.math)
• OS X 10.4

I think this is enough for a positive review. I've set to needs review. If someone else feels likewise, we might as well set this to positive.

If there are any issues on fully supported platforms, the buildbot should find them.

Will the sphinx package that has been used as a test be in the next alpha? If so, that will test not only the build, but also the functionality.

Dave

[jdemeyer]

comment:40

Replying to @sagetrac-drkirkby:

Will the sphinx package that has been used as a test be in the next alpha? If so, that will test not only the build, but also the functionality.

Yes, it will be in the next alpha (unless there is major breakage on my own testing systems), but it still needs_review (#10118).

[sagetrac-drkirkby]

comment:41

PS, it would be useful to attach a build log of the failure to build on OS X 10.4 with patch 2.6.1, along with the config.log for OS X. Just log building the upstream source, outside of Sage. I'll do likewise for Solaris 10 on SPARC.

Then I can report the bug with patch 2.6.1 upstream, and provide links to the failed logs. Having provided links to failed builds on two platforms, the developers should be in a good position to fix the bug.

Dave

[jdemeyer]

comment:42

Fixed a trivial typo (cannot to find... -> cannot find) in spkg-install.

New spkg: http://sage.math.washington.edu/home/jdemeyer/spkg/patch-2.5.9.spkg

[jdemeyer]

Merged: sage-4.6.1.alpha2

[jhpalmieri]

comment:44

See #10299 for a follow-up.

[nexttime]

comment:45

Replying to @sagetrac-drkirkby:

Replying to @JohnCremona:

Replying to @sagetrac-drkirkby:

I've updated deps and the patch for it. The package will have to wait though, as I need to do some painting.

That would be a colour patch, I presume?

I think it will be showed as red and green in the browser, though the paint was white!

Should we ask Microsoft if we can make paint a standard spkg as well?

---

Stop environmental pollution...

We already have nice environment variables like "R" and "PYTHON"; can we rename it to e.g. GNU_PATCH in spkg/install and spkg/standard/deps?

---

P.S.: Why not add the patch spkg to $(BASE) (and make it depend on the previous three $(BASE) packages)?

As is, all standard spkgs will get rebuilt on an upgrade (to a version of Sage with patch "newly" included) anyway. (Therefore I would actually prefer adding patch as a dependency selectively. spkg/standard/deps will be under revision control soon...)

[jdemeyer]

comment:46

Leif: I don't have any particular feelings either in favour of or against your suggestions. Feel free to open a new ticket for these issues.

About $(BASE): I never quite understood the difference between spkg/base and spkg/standard. What is the difference?