On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 10:50 AM, Tim Abbott <tabb...@mit.edu> wrote: > > Sorry for the slow reply. sage-devel's Reply-To munging drops > everyone from the Cc: on replies and I'm normally not directly > subscribed to the list. > > (because of this kind of problem, I do think that everyone should run > their high-traffic mailing lists without any sort of reply-to munging, > like the Linux folks do) > > On May 6, 9:46 pm, mabshoff <mabsh...@googlemail.com> wrote: >> > Since they haven't released in several years, this might be a good time to >> > send them any patches Sage has against ghmm that haven't been applied >> > there already. >> >> Well, William did some pretty deep changes upstream does not want, >> i.e. Sage does not use the XML interface that they want to keep non- >> optional, so I am not sure how much of the code should actually go >> upstream. > > Yeah, that does sound potentially problematic. What is the motivation > is for avoiding the ghmm XML interface?
The *only* motivation is so that we can build GHMM without requiring any xml libraries as a dependency. > Is the plan for Sage to maintain the changes to evade the XML > interface indefinitely? Yes. > Does the Sage patch for this at least not break any functionality in > upstream ghmm? If so, I could potentially include it in the Debian > ghmm package. In theory (at least wrt this problem) you should be able to just use the normal Debian ghmm with Sage, since the _only_ reason for my xml patch is so we can build ghmm. Since ghmm already builds fine in Debian, this is a nonissue for you. >> > I can't figure out what those are, however, because the .spkg in Sage >> > 3.4.1 seems to have a bunch of patches that don't do anything (i.e. the >> > file being copied in is replacing an identical file). Did someone >> > accidentally overwrite the copies in the upstream directory, or did the >> > patches all get merged already? >> >> Sounds like an accident. > > Yeah, that's what I figured. It'd be helpful if you could shoot me an > email when that gets cleared up so I can take a look at the Sage > diffs. > >> As is the code in Sage is actually partially >> broken on Itanium/Linux (some allocator just segfaults), so this ought >> to be sorted out in Sage 4.0.x. Right now the plan is to do 4.0 before >> SD 15, 4.0.1 after SD 15 with work from SD 15 and patches that didn't >> make it into 4.0. and then hopefully sort out everything for Debian >> for 4.0.2, i.e. about a month from now. Does that fit with your time >> table? >> >> After that we ought to have 4.1 which should deal with the category >> patches, etc. > William --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sage-devel-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URLs: http://www.sagemath.org -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
