I threw together a Python 2.7 spkg: <http://sage.math.washington.edu/home/palmieri/SPKG/ python-2.7.p0.spkg>
It seems to build okay on sage.math, and I haven't tested on any other machines. It has issues when trying to build Sage: the packages for twisted, zodb, pygments, and numpy don't build correctly. I haven't tried very hard to fix this, and I probably won't anytime soon. I'm sure other people could track down the problems more easily than I could. Anyway, it's there for now if anyone else wants to play with it. John On Sep 20, 9:09 am, mhampton <[email protected]> wrote: > I am interested in using python 2.7 in Sage, so I was planning on > working on it. But I must admit that many things take precedence over > that for me, so no one else should wait for me to do anything. I am > happy to be cc'ed on a ticket for that, and I'll help if I can. > > -Marshall > > On Sep 20, 11:04 am, John H Palmieri <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Should we change the spkg-check file for the python spkg? Are there > > *any* machines on which it passes? I've tried vanilla python-2.6.6 > > and python-2.7, and while I can get python-2.7 to pass self-tests on > > one machine (sage.math), it fails on every other machine I've tried: a > > Mac OS X 10.6 machine, t2.math, and a handful of skynet machines. I > > think python-2.6.6 fails on all of these, including sage.math. > > > It would be nice if you could do > > > $ SAGE_CHECK=yes > > $ export SAGE_CHECK > > $ make > > > and have some chance of Sage building successfully, but the python > > spkg prevents this from happening, and on many linux and OS X > > machines, it may be the only obstacle. (R caused trouble for me on > > Solaris, also.) > > > So what should we do with the python spkg-check file? It would be too > > drastic to ignore all failures. Of the many tests which python runs, > > are there some whose failures we can safely ignore, and so we should > > just skip them? For example, test_distutils fails on sage.math (in > > 2.6.6), and test_mailbox fails on the skynet machines; are these > > failures acceptable? > > > (Along these lines, we might get some improvement by switching to > > Python 2.7. Is anyone working on this?) > > > -- > > John -- To post to this group, send an email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URL: http://www.sagemath.org
