On Friday 19 April 2024 at 20:08:51 UTC+2 Matthias Koeppe wrote:
On Friday, April 19, 2024 at 5:08:02 AM UTC-7 Martin R wrote:
2.) If this is about dependencies on other software, why aren't the
distributions named after these dependencies?
Martin, I have answered this already when you
On Friday, April 19, 2024 at 5:08:02 AM UTC-7 Martin R wrote:
2.) If this is about dependencies on other software, why aren't the
distributions named after these dependencies?
Martin, I have answered this already when you asked it in the PR: Some are.
Note that the description of the PR where
On Fri, 2024-04-19 at 09:46 -0700, Matthias Koeppe wrote:
>
> Michael, note that in my message I asked for a vote on that dependency
> https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36676.
>
Even if 36676 gets approval, 36964 must be reverted. It was not
meaningfully voted upon.
--
You received this
On Friday, April 19, 2024 at 5:08:02 AM UTC-7 Martin R wrote:
*> What is the modularization project?* The Sage developer community has
long been aware of the severe problems that the monolithic design of Sage
has brought. See in particular the lively 2016 sage-devel thread "How we
develop
On Friday, April 19, 2024 at 3:47:38 AM UTC-7 Michael Orlitzky wrote:
On 2024-04-18 14:18:37, Matthias Koeppe wrote:
> As an alternative to the proposal to back out the
> PR https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36964 whose *disputed dependency
> PR https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36676
Dear Matthias!
*> What is the modularization project?* The Sage developer community has
long been aware of the severe problems that the monolithic design of Sage
has brought. See in particular the lively 2016 sage-devel thread "How we
develop Sage"
On 2024-04-18 16:04:43, Lorenz Panny wrote:
> >
> > It's also 214 software packages which might, for all we know, at any
> > time be hijacked by The Bad Guys to run arbitrarily malicious code on
> > every Sage user's machine.
> >
> > This is terrifying.
276 now
--
You received this message
@Dima, thanks, I know that though. Nevertheless, I now started from anew
(that is I removed the sage directory and git-cloned sage to make sure that
there are no remains causing trouble). After running configure, the script
suggests to `sudo pacman -S eclib fflas-ffpack linbox nauty singular`.
On 2024-04-18 14:18:37, Matthias Koeppe wrote:
> Dear all:
>
> As an alternative to the proposal to back out the
> PR https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36964 whose *disputed dependency
> PR https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36676 which had not reached the
> required 2:1 supermajority
On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 02:28:13AM -0700, 'Peter Mueller' via sage-devel wrote:
> I just figured out that the installation from source (even with the
> explicit configure option `--with-system-singular`) on an up to date arch
> linux machine ignores the installed singular (`pacman -Q singular`
I just figured out that the installation from source (even with the
explicit configure option `--with-system-singular`) on an up to date arch
linux machine ignores the installed singular (`pacman -Q singular` returns
`singular 4.3.2.p16-1`). Not sure if it is a path problem that makes the
+1 for merging #37796.
Volker, I would appreciate if you could say something about how #36964 was
merged. It would be useful to understand the process with merging this,
rather than guessing the intent. Additionally, I thought we didn't merge
things when the dependencies have not been merged
I think you raise very important concerns.
The only sage change I see after the xz drama is @Dima occasionally
PGP signing his mails.
The more packages you "own", the more developers you own. The more
developers you own, the more packages you own.
On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 5:09 PM Lorenz Panny
13 matches
Mail list logo
