On 19 June 2015 at 10:12, Volker Braun wrote:
> Yeah but Apple, in their infinite wisdom, has decided to put
> /usr/local/include at place #2 in the header include path. Even before
> /usr/include. So there is that.
>
Oh boy.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Googl
On 2015-06-19 14:50, la...@math.luc.edu wrote:
Can one move to compiling from source, starting from the binaries?
I think it should actually be possible.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop rec
On Friday, June 19, 2015 at 6:15:32 AM UTC-5, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
>
> On 2015-06-19 00:08, la...@math.luc.edu wrote:
> > How about this for a *radical* idea: a true bundle, with EVERYTHING that
> > one needs all in the SAGE_ROOT directory.
>
> What you're describing is essentially how the S
>
> > Yeah but Apple, in their infinite wisdom, has decided to put
>> > /usr/local/include at place #2 in the header include path. Even before
>> > /usr/include. So there is that.
>>
>> Sure, but the Sage-compiled-GCC wouldn't have this problem. So at least,
>> this "random crap" problem is on
On Friday, June 19, 2015 at 1:10:59 PM UTC+2, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
>
> > Yeah but Apple, in their infinite wisdom, has decided to put
> > /usr/local/include at place #2 in the header include path. Even before
> > /usr/include. So there is that.
>
> Sure, but the Sage-compiled-GCC wouldn't have
On 2015-06-13 01:26, William Stein wrote:
I'm also curious if anybody
has any -- possibly *radical* -- suggestions about how to address this
problem using new ideas.
Many issues involve some kind of misinstallation or misconfiguration of
XCode. Perhaps more checking in ./configure for these kn
On 2015-06-19 00:08, la...@math.luc.edu wrote:
How about this for a *radical* idea: a true bundle, with EVERYTHING that
one needs all in the SAGE_ROOT directory.
What you're describing is essentially how the Sage binaries are
distributed. If there exists a binary for your machine, you could tr
On 2015-06-19 10:12, Volker Braun wrote:
On Sunday, June 14, 2015 at 11:00:05 PM UTC+2, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
Normally, packages aren't supposed to look in /usr/local if they are
passed proper configuration flags.
Yeah but Apple, in their infinite wisdom, has decided to put
/usr/local/
>
> On Sunday, June 14, 2015 at 11:00:05 PM UTC+2, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
> Normally, packages aren't supposed to look in /usr/local if they are
> passed proper configuration flags.
Yeah but Apple, in their infinite wisdom, has decided to put
/usr/local/include at place #2 in the header inclu
On Friday, June 19, 2015 at 3:17:30 AM UTC+2, Travis Scrimshaw wrote:
>
> Perhaps a slightly less radical idea would be to make sage interface with
> the underlying package manager to install the necessary dependencies when
> running make
>
Of course there is no package management on OSX...
--
On Saturday, June 13, 2015 at 2:05:54 PM UTC-4, Volker Braun wrote:
>
> On Saturday, June 13, 2015 at 1:27:30 AM UTC+2, William wrote:
>>
>> I'm also curious if anybody has any -- possibly *radical* -- suggestions
>> about how to address this
>> problem using new ideas.
>
>
> Use Docker (or bo
Perhaps a slightly less radical idea would be to make sage interface with
the underlying package manager to install the necessary dependencies when
running make. Or at the very least, stop immediately and state what needs
to be installed if a system-wide dependency is not available.
Best,
Travi
I may be a example of Volker's "random crap" problem... I participated in
sage days 65 and still don't have a sage-from-source compiled.
(see separate note in sage-devel.)
I also know next-to-nothing about make and computer architecture, so feel
free to dismiss the following...
How about this
On 2015-06-14 11:05, Volker Braun wrote:
But more machines won't
help unless you want to install random crap on them.
I don't know if you're serious, but I think that more machines *with*
random crap might actually be a good idea.
Normally, packages aren't supposed to look in /usr/local if t
On Sunday, June 14, 2015 at 9:15:17 PM UTC+2, bluescarni wrote:
>
> Wait, so Apple does not support an OS which came out in late 2013
>
Well there are no official statements. But
a) The "rootpipe" vulnerability remains unpatched on 10.9.
b) Xcode >= 6.3 requires OSX 10.10.
--
You received th
Wait, so Apple does not support an OS which came out in late 2013?
On 14 June 2015 at 11:05, Volker Braun wrote:
> I don't think more testing is the answer. Really, the problems boil down
> to
>
> a) OSX users running outdated and usupported OSX versions (i.e. anything <
> 10.10); Do you want to
I don't think more testing is the answer. Really, the problems boil down to
a) OSX users running outdated and usupported OSX versions (i.e. anything <
10.10); Do you want to run a buildbot with an OS version that has major
unfixed security issues and that has been EOL'ed by the manufacturer?
A
The Sage docker image can be found here:
https://registry.hub.docker.com/u/sagemath/sage/
On Sunday, June 14, 2015 at 3:33:45 AM UTC+2, Christopher Swenson wrote:
>
> I like the idea of having an official Docker image.
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google G
Perfect. :)
On Sat, Jun 13, 2015 at 7:01 PM, William Stein wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 13, 2015 at 6:33 PM, Christopher Swenson
> wrote:
> > I like the idea of having an official Docker image.
> >
> > I think also creating a "standard", say, VirtualBox image with the latest
> > Sage on a reasonable Li
On Sat, Jun 13, 2015 at 6:33 PM, Christopher Swenson
wrote:
> I like the idea of having an official Docker image.
>
> I think also creating a "standard", say, VirtualBox image with the latest
> Sage on a reasonable Linux OS (like the latest LTS ubuntu), and releasing
> that as well could be cool.
I like the idea of having an official Docker image.
I think also creating a "standard", say, VirtualBox image with the latest
Sage on a reasonable Linux OS (like the latest LTS ubuntu), and releasing
that as well could be cool.
--Christopher
On Sat, Jun 13, 2015 at 3:35 PM, William Stein wrote:
On Sat, Jun 13, 2015 at 3:17 PM, Jean-Pierre Flori
wrote:
> OS X in VM's? Is that legal? Maybe only on OS X hardware?
>
It is legal on OS X hardware. In my office I have a mac pro with 32GB RAM,
which could be used for build testing with VM's. It's not being used for
much of anything right now
OS X in VM's? Is that legal? Maybe only on OS X hardware?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this
On Saturday, June 13, 2015, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
> On 2015-06-13 01:26, William Stein wrote:
>
>> suggestions about how to address this
>> problem using new ideas.
>>
> More testing? More and different buildbot machines testing more operating
> systems? Perhaps using VM's?
>
>
Andrew Ohana is se
On 2015-06-13 01:26, William Stein wrote:
suggestions about how to address this
problem using new ideas.
More testing? More and different buildbot machines testing more
operating systems? Perhaps using VM's?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-de
On Saturday, June 13, 2015 at 1:27:30 AM UTC+2, William wrote:
>
> I'm also curious if anybody has any -- possibly *radical* -- suggestions
> about how to address this
> problem using new ideas.
Use Docker (or boot2docker on OSX and Windows) to build and run Sage.
Pro: Instant windows port.
In regards to Franco's suggestion, I like it, but I think it should not
send it to sage-devel.
Best,
Travis non-CI
On Saturday, June 13, 2015 at 8:29:14 AM UTC-7, Jean-Pierre Flori wrote:
>
> sage-devel or sage-support (or sage-install or sage-apple or sage-osx :)
--
You received this message
sage-devel or sage-support (or sage-install or sage-apple or sage-osx :)
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
T
On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 10:03 PM, Franco Saliola wrote:
>
>
> On Friday, June 12, 2015 at 6:27:28 PM UTC-5, William Stein wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 1:28 PM, Franco Saliola
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > Here is a mini report on Sage Day 65. I'm not an organizer so this is
>> not
>> > official.
>
On 13/06/15 01:26, William Stein wrote:
On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 1:28 PM, Franco Saliola wrote:
Here is a mini report on Sage Day 65. I'm not an organizer so this is not
official.
Thanks to Anne Schilling for helping to prepare this.
- 24 tickets on trac are tagged with `sagedays65` or `sd65
On Saturday, June 13, 2015 at 5:03:02 AM UTC+2, Franco Saliola wrote:
>
> Most of these problems were related to installing on Macs: various
> different OS versions (10.10, 10.9, 10.8, ...); XCode versions
>
Apple does not support OSX < 10.10, so I don't see how we could (or should).
(3) A compu
On Friday, June 12, 2015 at 6:27:28 PM UTC-5, William Stein wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 1:28 PM, Franco Saliola
> wrote:
> >
> > Here is a mini report on Sage Day 65. I'm not an organizer so this is
> not
> > official.
> > Thanks to Anne Schilling for helping to prepare this.
> >
> If you are asking for ideas, I'm wondering: how hard would it be to
> give the user better information and better options in the case when a
> Sage install fails due to a package?
>
I'll add a +1 for this idea.
I helped Stephen Doty install the development version of Sage on his
machine whi
On Friday, June 12, 2015, Anne Schilling wrote:
> Actually, Peter Tingley's Sage was not working due to some git problems
> (committing on top of the develop branch)! That has been fixed. So it was
> not really an install problem.
>
> The SageMathCloud was great for those who had trouble installi
Actually, Peter Tingley's Sage was not working due to some git problems
(committing on top of the develop branch)! That has been fixed. So it was not
really an install problem.
The SageMathCloud was great for those who had trouble installing Sage on their
own computer. Sometimes we had connecti
On Sat, Jun 13, 2015 at 1:26 AM, William Stein wrote:
> This is a bummer. It gives me even more motivation to make
> SageMathCloud Sage-developer friendly.I'm also curious if anybody
> has any -- possibly *radical* -- suggestions about how to address this
> problem using new ideas.
+1 for a
On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 1:28 PM, Franco Saliola wrote:
>
> Here is a mini report on Sage Day 65. I'm not an organizer so this is not
> official.
> Thanks to Anne Schilling for helping to prepare this.
>
> - 24 tickets on trac are tagged with `sagedays65` or `sd65`. Some of these
> have
> been po
37 matches
Mail list logo