On 2014-09-26 10:32, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
* qfparam_primpart.patch: fixes PARI bug #1611, upstream has not yet
commented on this.
This has now been accepted upstream, so there is 1 less patch to worry
about.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
I waited a little bit before saying my bit.
You are making my work as a person packaging sage for a distro difficult.
Heck it was difficult when you started shipping pari 2.4 snapshots while
you were release manager.
The only thing that keeps me from quitting is pure dumb stubbornness.
As for my
Hello sage-devel,
The upstream situation with PARI has always been somewhat difficult. The
don't easily accept patches written by people which are not in their
inner circle. That, plus the importance of PARI inside Sage, is probably
also one of the reasons that PARI in Sage has so many
Sage is very lucky indeed that Pari exists and is as good as it is for
many things. Sage is also very lucky that you (Jeroen) exist since
you have been very useful to *both* projects, working hard to improve
both, and on particular reporting -- and fixing -- a lot of upstream
bugs, i.e. bugs in
On 2014-09-26 10:52, John Cremona wrote:
I'm sure many
Sage users do not know how much Pari is used for come very important
functionality, such as most number field stuff.
...and a lot of elliptic curves stuff, elementary number theory of
integers, some linear algebra, arbitrary-precision
On 2014-09-26 16:42, Julien Puydt wrote:
I don't think it's good to patch upstream and ship it as if it were
upstream.
What do you mean with ship it as if it were upstream? It's not like we
hide the fact that PARI is patched.
It would be better to add functionality to sage-over-pari instead
Hi,
Le 26/09/2014 17:04, Jeroen Demeyer a écrit :
On 2014-09-26 16:42, Julien Puydt wrote:
I don't think it's good to patch upstream and ship it as if it were
upstream.
What do you mean with ship it as if it were upstream? It's not like we
hide the fact that PARI is patched.
A good
