Installation manual: Add decision tree, remove mention of Sage-mirror-hosted binary distributions

[mkoeppe]

The binary distributions on the Sage mirrors are unmaintained (#31133) and have been broken for a long time.

We update the manual by including a decision tree. It never leads to the recommendation to use these binary distributions because better alternatives are available for every use case.

Hence, we replace all details regarding binaries by a short notice that they have been discontinued.

PR to also remove mention of the binaries from the website:

• src/download*.html: Remove mention of old binaries website#228 (merged)

CC: @dimpase @jhpalmieri @vbraun @collares @isuruf

Component: distribution

Author: Matthias Koeppe

Branch/Commit: 0f6ade5

Reviewer: Dima Pasechnik

Issue created by migration from https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/33131

[mkoeppe]

Description changed:

--- 
+++ 
@@ -3,5 +3,6 @@
 We direct people instead to
 - conda-forge
 - nix
+- docker
 - build from source.
 

[mkoeppe]

Branch: u/mkoeppe/installation_manual__remove_mention_of_binary_distributions

[mkoeppe]

Author: Matthias Koeppe

[mkoeppe]

Commit: 480ec86

[mkoeppe]

New commits:

480ec86

src/doc/en/installation: Remove mention of binaries

[mkoeppe]

Description changed:

--- 
+++ 
@@ -6,3 +6,5 @@
 - docker
 - build from source.
 
+PR to also remove mention of the binaries from the website: https://github.com/sagemath/website/pull/228
+

[mkoeppe]

Description changed:

--- 
+++ 
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-The binary distributions on the Sage mirrors are unmaintained and have been broken for a long time.
+The binary distributions on the Sage mirrors are unmaintained (#31133) and have been broken for a long time.
 
 We direct people instead to
 - conda-forge

[orlitzky]

comment:9

Huge +1 from me. If you want a binary, you should be getting it with (say) apt-get.

[dimpase]

comment:10

yes! +100

[EmmanuelCharpentier]

comment:11

Binary distributions are a "necessary evil" for platforms where building Sage can be considered as needing "system fu" out of proportion of "normal" using Sage fu.

Cases in point :

• Windows

Notwithstanding E. Madison Bray and others' gigantic efforts, building the Cygwin port of Sage is difficult ; probably too difficult for casual Windows users. The problem is that this puts Sage above the reach of at least 90% of undergraduate science/math students, i. e. our core target audience for future users.

The future of Sage on Windows may well reside in WSL2. However, this solution implies the care and feeding of a Linux virtual machine on Windows. Easier, but again out of the reach of at least 50% of our target audience (Unif fu isn'a as popular among science/engineering students ast it once was, don't get me started on biology/geology students, and don't even think of physicians-to-be...:-)).

• Mac

Not approaching a Mac at least than ten yards, I can't possibly knowledgeably comment on this platform ; I am still impressed by the sheer volume of Mac-specific or Mac-related problems that flourish on sage-release at each release...

Again, this platform represents a non-negligible part of our target audience.

These two platforms are a special case, requiring IMHO special consideration...

[EmmanuelCharpentier]

comment:12

Replying to @orlitzky:

Huge +1 from me. If you want a binary, you should be getting it with (say) apt-get.

Agreed. For Linux (Unix) users.

Which are nowadays a dwindling minority (if an elite one, of course ;-)). See below my remarks on Windows and Macs...

And, BTW, a Debian package is a binary distribution...

[dimpase]

comment:13

Replying to @EmmanuelCharpentier:

Binary distributions are a "necessary evil" for platforms where building Sage can be considered as needing "system fu" out of proportion of "normal" using Sage fu.

Cases in point :

• Windows

use Docker.

• Mac

Not approaching a Mac at least than ten yards, I can't possibly knowledgeably comment on this platform ; I am still impressed by the sheer volume of Mac-specific or Mac-related problems that flourish on sage-release at each release...

Again, this platform represents a non-negligible part of our target audience.

for Mac there is a binary installer provided by Snappy group.

[pipedream]

comment:14

The ticket is to remove it from the installation documentation. I'm absolutely fine with that if it improves the situation for developers and users.

I would still like access to easily download binary distributions.

I recently on Linux (Debian) had problems building a newer version than apt but th ebinary distribution worked fine. I also do have problems with the numpy SIGILL on older CPUs (which the Debian versions don't have; don't know why).

I'd love to have Debian backports and sloppy-backports or third party (preferably sagemath not launchpad) repositories with latest sagemath packages for Debian releases and Ubuntu LTSes at least. Might be a tall order for volunteers to maintain.

[orlitzky]

comment:15

Replying to @pipedream:

The ticket is to remove it from the installation documentation. I'm absolutely fine with that if it improves the situation for developers and users.

I would still like access to easily download binary distributions.

That's not an option either way:

• https://www.sagemath.org/download-windows.html
• https://www.sagemath.org/download-linux.html
• https://www.sagemath.org/download-mac.html

There are many unfixed problems -- some fundamental -- and to put it bluntly, nobody cares. This ticket just changes the documentation to reflect reality, and perhaps in the future will allow us to not be held back by "what about the binaries?!" arguments.

[sagetrac-tmonteil]

comment:16

I think the question is not whether the binaries are maintained or not on our side but whether they are useful to users. I used to build up to 16 binaries at each release some years ago, then stopped since Jan Groenwald at AIMS dedicated some machines for that. Maybe he stopped after many years, but it is not an individual question. If those binaries are useful, then we should put some energy to dedicate some infrastructure for them, not the other way. I have the impression that the same happened with gitlab workers (they were usefull but since they were unmaintained, we stopped them).

Regarding MacOS binaries, why not shipping the ones produced by 3-manifolds project on the Sage mirrors ?