2010/1/16 Dima Pasechnik <dimp...@gmail.com>: > > > On Jan 17, 12:53 pm, "Dr. David Kirkby" <david.kir...@onetel.net> > wrote: >> Dima Pasechnik wrote: >> > I understand that Debian support is on hold. AFAIK, a proper Debian >> > requires a complete refactoring >> > of the code, in particular removing all the things that are not really >> > Sage, e.g. mercurial, gap, singular, etc etc etc. >> > I understand it has been done at some point for Sage 3, but then the >> > main person who did that >> > got a "real" job and dropped out. >> > One can certainly package Sage as a .deb, but does this make much >> > sense? >> > Best, >> > Dmitrii >> >> Could an argument not be made to the Debian people that the code is gap >> singular >> etc, but patched versions of them. Call them Foo and Bar if necessary! No >> seriously, I can understand them not wanting 'standard' things packaged, but >> if >> the items are significantly modified from the 'standard' distribution, then >> there seems to be an valid argument for it being available. > > unfortunately, some items, e.g. GAP, are not just "modified", but old > and buggy. > On GAP support lists noone would take questions on GAP 4.4.10, the > release currently used by Sage. > Try to sell this to Debian...
A fully debianized Sage would (does?) use whatever Gap version is in Debian. > [well, what I do in GAP is affected by the upgade to 4.4.12 that has > not made it into Sage yet, so I can't so that's > perhaps why I sound too agitated on this...] Two weeks ago GAP was broken. You worked on it (thanks!!!), and learned that there was a major bug that impacted one of our fully supported architectures. Steve Linton fixed the bug and issued a patch, which you helped integrate in Sage. We haven't released the next version of Sage yet, but it should I hope contain the new version of GAP. > Moreover, I want to call cvxopt with data obtained in GAP (and get > some answers back). > But cvxopt in Sage is also old and buggy! They had gone to version 1 > already quite a while ago, and all > the documentation now is for version 1. > Well, this, unlike GAP, requires some substantial porting in few > places; but still, I am stuck > documentation-less, at least... Why do you think it will take "substantial porting in few places" to get cvxopt to work with Sage? It sounds like you've worked on this. Thanks! Like with GAP, your contributions would be greatly appreciated in getting cvxopt updated. The only reasons it hasn't been updated so far is because there haven't been any really serious sage + cvxopt users yet... but with you now there is one. You're the guy to update that. William
-- To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URL: http://www.sagemath.org
