[sage-devel] sage 2.7 on ppc build problem
Building from scratch on a ppc laptop, I run aground when it gets to lapack. I already had a gfortran installed which may be the problem. Here are the errors I get at the end of the install attempt: ( cd INSTALL; make; ./testlsame; ./testslamch; \ ./testdlamch; ./testsecond; ./testdsecnd; ./testversion ) gfortran -fPIC -c lsame.f -o lsame.o gfortran -fPIC -c lsametst.f -o lsametst.o gfortran -o testlsame lsame.o lsametst.o /usr/bin/ld: Undefined symbols: __gfortran_store_exe_path collect2: ld returned 1 exit status make[3]: *** [testlsame] Error 1 /bin/sh: line 1: ./testlsame: No such file or directory /bin/sh: line 1: ./testslamch: cannot execute binary file /bin/sh: line 1: ./testdlamch: cannot execute binary file /bin/sh: line 1: ./testsecond: No such file or directory /bin/sh: line 1: ./testdsecnd: cannot execute binary file /bin/sh: line 1: ./testversion: cannot execute binary file make[2]: *** [lapack_install] Error 126 Error compiling lapack. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URLs: http://sage.scipy.org/sage/ and http://modular.math.washington.edu/sage/ -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[sage-devel] Re: sage 2.7 on ppc build problem
On 7/22/07, Hamptonio [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Building from scratch on a ppc laptop, I run aground when it gets to lapack. I already had a gfortran installed which may be the problem. It's almost certainly caused by that. Please use a binary or wait for sage-2.7.1, which will be released tomorrow. Here are the errors I get at the end of the install attempt: ( cd INSTALL; make; ./testlsame; ./testslamch; \ ./testdlamch; ./testsecond; ./testdsecnd; ./testversion ) gfortran -fPIC -c lsame.f -o lsame.o gfortran -fPIC -c lsametst.f -o lsametst.o gfortran -o testlsame lsame.o lsametst.o /usr/bin/ld: Undefined symbols: __gfortran_store_exe_path collect2: ld returned 1 exit status make[3]: *** [testlsame] Error 1 /bin/sh: line 1: ./testlsame: No such file or directory /bin/sh: line 1: ./testslamch: cannot execute binary file /bin/sh: line 1: ./testdlamch: cannot execute binary file /bin/sh: line 1: ./testsecond: No such file or directory /bin/sh: line 1: ./testdsecnd: cannot execute binary file /bin/sh: line 1: ./testversion: cannot execute binary file make[2]: *** [lapack_install] Error 126 Error compiling lapack. -- William Stein Associate Professor of Mathematics University of Washington http://www.williamstein.org --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URLs: http://sage.scipy.org/sage/ and http://modular.math.washington.edu/sage/ -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[sage-devel] Re: Packaging Sage
On 7/19/07, Georges Khaznadar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: William Stein a écrit : (1) Create a monolothic .deb, which installs everything SAGE currently distributes in /opt/sage/, along with a run script /usr/bin/sage. This stage is OK : the debian package was built finely, but it is done using a brutal technique: everything is distributed, even .o files and many other useless stuff. The resulting package is bloated (255 megaBytes!) Why is it so big? It should be possible to make that package but have it be about 150MB. I don't wish to uplod it anywhere, and prefer going on with stage 2 as soon as possible. I would greatly appreciate it if we could finish stage 1 first, and really have it something that works well, can be distributed, etc. This would really be beneficial to many people, and as you have already demonstrated shouldn't be too difficult. S I would like to ask you some questions in order to save time and unnecessary trials: There must be some glue between Sage's core and the other packages like Gap et Maxima, etc. As I aim to replace every part of Sage's current package which was already packaged independently, by some modification of the relevant glue component, so I would like to have some advice about it if you can write it. For example, when I packaged Wims, which is now a package of Debian Stable, I had to check that the file /var/lib/wims/public_html/bin/maxima which is the wrapper used by Wims to call Maxima was compatible with the current debian package already existing. Fortunately, there were very few modifications to do inside these glue components. Hopefully it may be similar for Sage? That's unlikely. Usually just using *anything* but the current version of maxima causes tons of problems, since they frequently make substantial changes to precision, special functions, etc. It's a surprisingly actively developed package. Mathematics software that wasn't meant to be used in library mode has a very very complicated interface that is often not very stable between versions of the software. That SAGE packages everything else in a monolithic fashion is perhaps the main technical reason SAGE is possible at all. That said, since you're unstoppable :-), each SAGE package (.spkg) is a tar.bz2 ball that has a file spkg-install in it, and a directory patches with all patches we make against the standard source tarball (actually, patches usually contains whole files instead of patches -- use diff to get an actual diff if you want one). (2) Only after having completely mastering (1), move on to considering breaking up SAGE into smaller packages and installing into the standard Debian environment. So I consider it now. If you want I can release the files sage_2.6.orig.tar.gz (105557191 Bytes) and sage_2.6-1.diff.gz ( 7633 Bytes) As you can see, the modification to debianise unproprely sage is very lightweight. However I should make a more complete diff file to do it following the debian way and make these sources yeld a more reasonably sized binary package. Hence the call for your advice. Unfortunately (for your project) at the moment the SAGE distribution itself is undergoing some fairly extreme modifications as a result of several of the coding sprint projects at SAGE Days 4. We've added numerous new packages, and Didier Deshome did a bunch of great work designing a better structure for SAGE spkg's. The next version of SAGE (2.7.1), which I'll release tomorrow, will have all spkg's repackaged using this new structure. Also, it will have, hopefully, build much more reliably than SAGE-2.7, due to switching to g95 fortran. I would be extremely grateful if you could download sage-2.7.1 when I release it tomorrow, or look at http://sage.math.washington.edu/home/was/sage2.7.1/ which will be pretty close to what sage-2.7.1 will be. If nothing else, I would like any information about making a Debian SAGE package that you've come up with so far and would be willing to share. Thanks! By the way, would you like an account on sage.math.washington.edu? It's basically a big 16-core 64GB RAM server on which most sage developers have accounts. It helps greatly with sharing work. If so, write to me off-list. -- William --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URLs: http://sage.scipy.org/sage/ and http://modular.math.washington.edu/sage/ -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[sage-devel] build test help?
Hi, This weekend Josh Kantor and I redid the new SAGE build system so that (1) it uses g95 instead of gfortran, and (2) it includes the g95 binaries (instead of downloading them during the build). It would be incredibly useful to Josh Kantor and I if a few of you could download the tarball here: http://sage.math.washington.edu/home/was/sage2.7.1/ extract it, type make, and let me know what happens. I.e., does it build or not? I'm interested mainly in building on 64-bit linux installs, then 32-bit linux installs, then os x (powerpc). The output of make test, might also be interested, though I know that 2 or 3 tests will fail. Another good test that scipy built correctly is that sage: import scipy.optimize doesn't bomb out. (I know it bombs out on powerpc os x, and haven't figured out why -- it should work on everything else). Many thanks for any build feedback. And of course any comments about using g95, our whole build approach, etc., would be appreciated (the comments last week were very helpful -- there's no weird g2c ar stuff going on any more). -- William -- William Stein Associate Professor of Mathematics University of Washington http://www.williamstein.org --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URLs: http://sage.scipy.org/sage/ and http://modular.math.washington.edu/sage/ -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[sage-devel] SAGE Documentation brainstorming
Hello, I think SAGE might potentially greatly benefit from certain types of new documentation. Unfortunately, after consider a number of possibilities, I'm unsure about how to proceed. I'll discuss the best idea Josh Kantor and I came up with below. Let me know what you think, or suggest something else if you have any other ideas, or let me know what your concerns are (or if you would like to volunteer some writing). We could create a new manual, similar in format to the SAGE Tutorial, SAGE Reference manual, etc., but instead entitled SAGE Overview. This latex document might have chapters entitled as follows, and primary contributors as listed to the right: * Calculus -- me, Bobby Moretti, ?? * Combinatorics -- Robert Miller, Emily Kirkman * Algebra -- Martin Albrecht, David Joyner * Number Theory -- William Stein, Jaap Spies, David Kohel * Linear Algebra -- Josh Kantor, Robert Bradshaw, William Stein * Numerical Computation -- Josh Kantor * Plotting -- Tom Boothby, Josh Kantor, Me, Alex Clemesha Each chapter would have a few paragraphs that overview what one can do in SAGE related to each topic, followed by sections that go into more detail with examples. This is probably a very rough prototype of the sort of information the numerical computation chapter might provide: http://www.math.washington.edu/~jkantor/C_Fortran/C_Fortran.html The idea is that if you're a new users to SAGE, after getting some very basic feeling for SAGE, you flip directly to the relevant chapter of the book *for you*, e.g., if you do algebra you read that chapter, if you do calculus you read the calculus chapter, etc. And in reading that chapter, you get a pretty good sense of what SAGE is capable in your specialty, where to find further documentation (e.g., when you read about number theory, you learn that SAGE includes NTL, that NTL can do blah, and that you can find out more at location xyz). Also, there are some (but not too many) doctested examples throughout. What do people think? People would contribute to this document using hg_doc patches, just like they do now with tutorial, etc., contributions. An alternative would be to create short books for each topical area. This might be more manageable, or it might be less manageable; I'm not sure. -- William Stein Associate Professor of Mathematics University of Washington http://www.williamstein.org --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URLs: http://sage.scipy.org/sage/ and http://modular.math.washington.edu/sage/ -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[sage-devel] Re: [Pyrex] Pyrex idioms and optimizations?
On 7/12/07, Stefan Behnel wrote: Robert Bradshaw wrote: As part of the SAGE project, and due to the difficulty in getting some essential (to us) patches upstream, we have been keeping a separate branch of Pyrex named SageX. It's just Pyrex + (a bunch of patches) That reminds me: does that include the patches we use in lxml? I don't think so, unless Robert included them. I don't think I did. It would be great if you could check and see what the relation between SageX and lxml is. You can easily download sagex here: http://www.sagemath.org/packages/standard/sagex-20070710.spkg Just do tar jxvf sagex-20070710.spkg to get the result. It's almost exactly like the Pyrex distribution, except it has our code too and it has a mercurial repository in it (an .hg directory), which has the entire change history. Also, we (Robert) recently merged everything with the latest version of Pyrex. That's mainly the public C-API support What is the public C-API support? and some Python 2.5 fixes (Py_ssize_t). I'd love to I remember making a number of Py_ssize_t fixes myself, which I sent to Greg for the official Pyrex (he accepted those patches). Are you Python 2.5 fixes not in the official version? What are they? I use SageX only with Python 2.5, and as far as I can tell, it works very well with Python 2.5. have that in an at-least-semi-official Pyrex version so that we can stop providing our own version. One fork should be enough. Sure! Actually, I think it is finally time to set up a completely official fork of Pyrex, with its own mailing list, web page, etc (we've given Greg E. enough time to response to us forking, and he hasn't, etc.). It should have a simple straightforward name that explains what the project does. SageX is the wrong name, since it should be something not a priori associated with SAGE. For example, maybe it could just be called CompiledPython ?? That's basically what SageX / Pyrex does, and one I describe it as compiled Python just about anybody gets roughly what it does in seconds.What do you think? Would you be willing in a helping out a little (e.g., by subscribing to the mailing list and providing some feedback)? Thanks, William --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URLs: http://sage.scipy.org/sage/ and http://modular.math.washington.edu/sage/ -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[sage-devel] Re: SAGE Documentation brainstorming
What would the plan for the plotting documentation be? Would there be an overview of the plot objects followed by some small projects? For me I sort of get the basics of plotting in SAGE but do not really know how to do much in the way of mathematical art. For example I would have no idea how to make the spiral plots on my own. On 7/22/07, William Stein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello, I think SAGE might potentially greatly benefit from certain types of new documentation. Unfortunately, after consider a number of possibilities, I'm unsure about how to proceed. I'll discuss the best idea Josh Kantor and I came up with below. Let me know what you think, or suggest something else if you have any other ideas, or let me know what your concerns are (or if you would like to volunteer some writing). We could create a new manual, similar in format to the SAGE Tutorial, SAGE Reference manual, etc., but instead entitled SAGE Overview. This latex document might have chapters entitled as follows, and primary contributors as listed to the right: * Calculus -- me, Bobby Moretti, ?? * Combinatorics -- Robert Miller, Emily Kirkman * Algebra -- Martin Albrecht, David Joyner * Number Theory -- William Stein, Jaap Spies, David Kohel * Linear Algebra -- Josh Kantor, Robert Bradshaw, William Stein * Numerical Computation -- Josh Kantor * Plotting -- Tom Boothby, Josh Kantor, Me, Alex Clemesha Each chapter would have a few paragraphs that overview what one can do in SAGE related to each topic, followed by sections that go into more detail with examples. This is probably a very rough prototype of the sort of information the numerical computation chapter might provide: http://www.math.washington.edu/~jkantor/C_Fortran/C_Fortran.html The idea is that if you're a new users to SAGE, after getting some very basic feeling for SAGE, you flip directly to the relevant chapter of the book *for you*, e.g., if you do algebra you read that chapter, if you do calculus you read the calculus chapter, etc. And in reading that chapter, you get a pretty good sense of what SAGE is capable in your specialty, where to find further documentation (e.g., when you read about number theory, you learn that SAGE includes NTL, that NTL can do blah, and that you can find out more at location xyz). Also, there are some (but not too many) doctested examples throughout. What do people think? People would contribute to this document using hg_doc patches, just like they do now with tutorial, etc., contributions. An alternative would be to create short books for each topical area. This might be more manageable, or it might be less manageable; I'm not sure. -- William Stein Associate Professor of Mathematics University of Washington http://www.williamstein.org --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URLs: http://sage.scipy.org/sage/ and http://modular.math.washington.edu/sage/ -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[sage-devel] Re: SAGE Documentation brainstorming
Sounds like a great idea. You might consider adding a chapter for users who are looking for pre-calculus help (trig, simple algebra, other HS topics), an idea suggested by Mike O'Sullivan. On 7/22/07, William Stein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello, I think SAGE might potentially greatly benefit from certain types of new documentation. Unfortunately, after consider a number of possibilities, I'm unsure about how to proceed. I'll discuss the best idea Josh Kantor and I came up with below. Let me know what you think, or suggest something else if you have any other ideas, or let me know what your concerns are (or if you would like to volunteer some writing). We could create a new manual, similar in format to the SAGE Tutorial, SAGE Reference manual, etc., but instead entitled SAGE Overview. This latex document might have chapters entitled as follows, and primary contributors as listed to the right: * Calculus -- me, Bobby Moretti, ?? * Combinatorics -- Robert Miller, Emily Kirkman * Algebra -- Martin Albrecht, David Joyner * Number Theory -- William Stein, Jaap Spies, David Kohel * Linear Algebra -- Josh Kantor, Robert Bradshaw, William Stein * Numerical Computation -- Josh Kantor * Plotting -- Tom Boothby, Josh Kantor, Me, Alex Clemesha Each chapter would have a few paragraphs that overview what one can do in SAGE related to each topic, followed by sections that go into more detail with examples. This is probably a very rough prototype of the sort of information the numerical computation chapter might provide: http://www.math.washington.edu/~jkantor/C_Fortran/C_Fortran.html The idea is that if you're a new users to SAGE, after getting some very basic feeling for SAGE, you flip directly to the relevant chapter of the book *for you*, e.g., if you do algebra you read that chapter, if you do calculus you read the calculus chapter, etc. And in reading that chapter, you get a pretty good sense of what SAGE is capable in your specialty, where to find further documentation (e.g., when you read about number theory, you learn that SAGE includes NTL, that NTL can do blah, and that you can find out more at location xyz). Also, there are some (but not too many) doctested examples throughout. What do people think? People would contribute to this document using hg_doc patches, just like they do now with tutorial, etc., contributions. An alternative would be to create short books for each topical area. This might be more manageable, or it might be less manageable; I'm not sure. -- William Stein Associate Professor of Mathematics University of Washington http://www.williamstein.org --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URLs: http://sage.scipy.org/sage/ and http://modular.math.washington.edu/sage/ -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[sage-devel] Re: build test help?
Hello, Everything built and installed perfectly under Ubuntu 7.04 with a 64-bit Core 2 Duo. --Mike On 7/22/07, William Stein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, This weekend Josh Kantor and I redid the new SAGE build system so that (1) it uses g95 instead of gfortran, and (2) it includes the g95 binaries (instead of downloading them during the build). It would be incredibly useful to Josh Kantor and I if a few of you could download the tarball here: http://sage.math.washington.edu/home/was/sage2.7.1/ extract it, type make, and let me know what happens. I.e., does it build or not? I'm interested mainly in building on 64-bit linux installs, then 32-bit linux installs, then os x (powerpc). The output of make test, might also be interested, though I know that 2 or 3 tests will fail. Another good test that scipy built correctly is that sage: import scipy.optimize doesn't bomb out. (I know it bombs out on powerpc os x, and haven't figured out why -- it should work on everything else). Many thanks for any build feedback. And of course any comments about using g95, our whole build approach, etc., would be appreciated (the comments last week were very helpful -- there's no weird g2c ar stuff going on any more). -- William -- William Stein Associate Professor of Mathematics University of Washington http://www.williamstein.org --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URLs: http://sage.scipy.org/sage/ and http://modular.math.washington.edu/sage/ -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
