[sage-devel] Re: Supported Platforms web page is *very* out of date
I agree that the issue here is not whether David has contributed a lot or not. He's contributed, and that is what counts. The issue here is the cost of a port. If it is borne by David and people who volunteer to help him, then I have no problem with a port. But if it takes the form: 1) Complaint about problem x with package y by David on sage-devel 2) Email to maintainer of package y complaining about x 3) Maintainer of package y eventually fixes issue x 4) Goto 1 then I will *not* be a happy camper. I will especially not be happy if the suggestion is to replace package y with package y' because package y doesn't support HP-UX and the maintainer of package y doesn't want to support the port. Ports are complicated issues. I recently tried to port some packages to the TCC compiler which produces native binaries on Windows and is quite similar to the GNU compiler. But my mathematical career soon got in the way. I didn't find time to do more than a weekend of work on it in the last 3 months. Ports require who communities of interested people behind them, especially when the project is as large as Sage. How to do a successful port is a non-trivial issue which this community has not solved yet, in my humble opinion. But there is hope, especially if resources don't become bogged down in dead-end projects. Bill. On Feb 1, 8:10 pm, Martin Albrecht wrote: > On Monday 01 February 2010, Nick Alexander wrote: > > > > I think I've done a LOT for Sage - I would request you do not > > > purposely break the PA-RISC support in MPIR, when it clearly passes > > > all your self tests on HP-UX. I do not believe thiat is an > > > unreasonable request. > > > I take issue with the claim that you have done "a LOT" for Sage. Let > > me be clear: I appreciate the effort you put into porting Sage to > > other architectures. But I question how many people are interested in > > actually using Sage on those architectures. > > Hi Nick, > > I get your frustration and I appreciate how much it must be for you to react > so strongly. > > We don't all have to agree what a big contribution is and what not. Some > people really appreciate the porting efforts some people don't care. I also > get that the additional burden scares people of, yet another platform one does > not care about to worry about. > > Support for Solaris does not mean that every Sage developer has to work with > it and to support it. > > I really see no need for a competition who is more valuable etc. and I really > see no need to *take issue* with David's claim that he did a lot for Sage. I > personally think he did. > > One the other hand, we should all (including David) maybe take a step back and > appreciate that most people on this list are volunteers and that any demanding > tone will not get us anywhere. We all do it from time to time, when we are > frustrated, but it does not help anyone. > > Cheers, > Martin > > -- > name: Martin Albrecht > _pgp:http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x8EF0DC99 > _otr: 47F43D1A 5D68C36F 468BAEBA 640E8856 D7951CCF > _www:http://www.informatik.uni-bremen.de/~malb > _jab: martinralbre...@jabber.ccc.de -- 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
[sage-devel] Re: Supported Platforms web page is *very* out of date
Martin Albrecht wrote: On Monday 01 February 2010, Nick Alexander wrote: I think I've done a LOT for Sage - I would request you do not purposely break the PA-RISC support in MPIR, when it clearly passes all your self tests on HP-UX. I do not believe thiat is an unreasonable request. I take issue with the claim that you have done "a LOT" for Sage. Let me be clear: I appreciate the effort you put into porting Sage to other architectures. But I question how many people are interested in actually using Sage on those architectures. Hi Nick, I get your frustration and I appreciate how much it must be for you to react so strongly. We don't all have to agree what a big contribution is and what not. Some people really appreciate the porting efforts some people don't care. I also get that the additional burden scares people of, yet another platform one does not care about to worry about. I've contributed to sage in the math realm. Now I'm working on the port to Open Solaris. I really hope that will not take a year or so. Support for Solaris does not mean that every Sage developer has to work with it and to support it. +1 I really see no need for a competition who is more valuable etc. and I really see no need to *take issue* with David's claim that he did a lot for Sage. I personally think he did. +1 One the other hand, we should all (including David) maybe take a step back and appreciate that most people on this list are volunteers and that any demanding tone will not get us anywhere. We all do it from time to time, when we are frustrated, but it does not help anyone. +1 You spoke wise words! Jaap Cheers, Martin -- 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
[sage-devel] Re: Supported Platforms web page is *very* out of date
It's somewhat more complicated unfortunately. There are numerous gnu extensions which are used by people using gcc. I don't know if the HP- UX compiler is c99 or not, but that may be a second issue, especially for FLINT. On top of the compiler issues, if you port to the HP-UX OS you then have a whole different unix that your build system has to handle. If you've been watching the Solaris port you might get some idea of what the issues are there. When I talk about FLINT supporting HP-UX I am mainly talking about the compiler. I also understand from experts that it is a particularly fussy and bug-ridden product. That may be completely wrong. I am merely reporting hearsay. But I don't particularly care to find out. Bill. On Feb 1, 7:29 pm, "Georg S. Weber" wrote: > Hi, > > as far as I know, projects like NTL or MPIR/GMP have options to tell > them to use a "plain C" variant of their functionality. No assembler > code whatsoever, not optimized --- but compiling under any, say, ANSI > C99 compliant C compiler. So I think HP-UX will always be "supported" > in this sense. Maybe one has to explicitly tell the configuration > script to fall back to the "default case", but shouldn't it do that > anyway in an unknown (resp. not resp. not any longer "officially > supported") environment? > > I would expect FLINT to be alike, i.e. to have a fail-safe "plain C" > mode. The only possibility for a real "breakage" I then can see, is > that maybe the C compiler(s) available for HP-UX are somewhat buggy / > not truly ANSI C99 compliant. But GCC should be available and "fine"?! > > The big difference, of course, between Solaris and HP-UX is the user > base. For Solaris, there definitely is demand for Sage to be used (in > the sense of a mathematical tool). For HP-UX, I have not heard of any > "mere user" that asked for Sage on it, to do mathematical work. That > said, if Bill chooses not to "officially support" HP-UX in any > explicit way, and if Dave chooses to port Sage to HP-UX nevertheless > --- what the heck? From what I said above, I don't see any problem. > Sage is an open source project, to which (many) individuals > contribute, naturally driven by differing motivations. > > "One's freedom ends there, where another one's freedom begins." > > Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see where the Dave's > "freedom" and Bill's "freedom" would interfere in an incompatible way > here. > > Cheers, > Georg -- 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
Re: Re: [sage-devel] Re: Supported Platforms web page is *very* out of date
On Monday 01 February 2010, Nick Alexander wrote: > > I think I've done a LOT for Sage - I would request you do not > > purposely break the PA-RISC support in MPIR, when it clearly passes > > all your self tests on HP-UX. I do not believe thiat is an > > unreasonable request. > > I take issue with the claim that you have done "a LOT" for Sage. Let > me be clear: I appreciate the effort you put into porting Sage to > other architectures. But I question how many people are interested in > actually using Sage on those architectures. Hi Nick, I get your frustration and I appreciate how much it must be for you to react so strongly. We don't all have to agree what a big contribution is and what not. Some people really appreciate the porting efforts some people don't care. I also get that the additional burden scares people of, yet another platform one does not care about to worry about. Support for Solaris does not mean that every Sage developer has to work with it and to support it. I really see no need for a competition who is more valuable etc. and I really see no need to *take issue* with David's claim that he did a lot for Sage. I personally think he did. One the other hand, we should all (including David) maybe take a step back and appreciate that most people on this list are volunteers and that any demanding tone will not get us anywhere. We all do it from time to time, when we are frustrated, but it does not help anyone. Cheers, Martin -- name: Martin Albrecht _pgp: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x8EF0DC99 _otr: 47F43D1A 5D68C36F 468BAEBA 640E8856 D7951CCF _www: http://www.informatik.uni-bremen.de/~malb _jab: martinralbre...@jabber.ccc.de -- 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
[sage-devel] Re: Supported Platforms web page is *very* out of date
Hi, as far as I know, projects like NTL or MPIR/GMP have options to tell them to use a "plain C" variant of their functionality. No assembler code whatsoever, not optimized --- but compiling under any, say, ANSI C99 compliant C compiler. So I think HP-UX will always be "supported" in this sense. Maybe one has to explicitly tell the configuration script to fall back to the "default case", but shouldn't it do that anyway in an unknown (resp. not resp. not any longer "officially supported") environment? I would expect FLINT to be alike, i.e. to have a fail-safe "plain C" mode. The only possibility for a real "breakage" I then can see, is that maybe the C compiler(s) available for HP-UX are somewhat buggy / not truly ANSI C99 compliant. But GCC should be available and "fine"?! The big difference, of course, between Solaris and HP-UX is the user base. For Solaris, there definitely is demand for Sage to be used (in the sense of a mathematical tool). For HP-UX, I have not heard of any "mere user" that asked for Sage on it, to do mathematical work. That said, if Bill chooses not to "officially support" HP-UX in any explicit way, and if Dave chooses to port Sage to HP-UX nevertheless --- what the heck? From what I said above, I don't see any problem. Sage is an open source project, to which (many) individuals contribute, naturally driven by differing motivations. "One's freedom ends there, where another one's freedom begins." Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see where the Dave's "freedom" and Bill's "freedom" would interfere in an incompatible way here. Cheers, Georg -- 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
[sage-devel] Re: Supported Platforms web page is *very* out of date
As a user of sage, I'm quite happy with all of the work that has been going in to the Solaris port lately. Currently I have to use it from a zone running linux, which isn't so bad except the zones typically run older distributions of Linux. I know it creates additional work and I also thank all the sage developers for attempting to support that platform, even if it is not currently a large target market. I believe its market will continue to grow slowly; comparing it to HP-UX isn't quite fair, since their feature sets are very different and one has been modernized and open sourced, the other one I can only assume not so much. On Feb 1, 2:49 am, Nick Alexander wrote: > On 31-Jan-10, at 11:35 PM, Peter Jeremy wrote: > > > On 2010-Jan-31 22:02:19 -0800, Nick Alexander > > wrote: > >> Not at all. But take away mathematics, and we don't have a > >> *product*. Take away release management, fixing bugs, documentation, > >> or maintaining the web site and we have an inferior project, but we > >> still have a project. Take away support for Solaris or HP-UX, and we > >> don't serve what appears, to me, to be a small market. (Certainly > >> small compared to the potential pool of Microsoft Windows users.) > > > IMHO, that's a particularly unhelpful attitude. > > Who said that was my attitude? I explicitly recognized David's > efforts on our behalf. > > But notice: in your reply, the one thing you didn't subject to your > thought experiment was Solaris support! > > I think I am done with this thread. I have put in my two cents; I > think everyone reading this thread knows that at least one sage > developer is not thrilled with the additional burden that Solaris/HPUX/ > platform X support puts on the project. I'm certainly not intending > to agitate against your efforts -- but I would like that the cost that > comes with them be recognized, and, when reasonable, debated. > > Nick -- 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
[sage-devel] Re: Supported Platforms web page is *very* out of date
Actually, he was asking that I don't purposely break MPIR. We won't be purposely breaking anything. Merely not supporting it ourselves. If David wishes to support it, that is his prerogative. As for FLINT, it has never built on HP-UX, ever. I'm not going to put even 5 minutes into trying to get it to do so. It is completely beyond the scope of what FLINT is for. However, I would reconsider this matter if linux went south on Itanium. Then HP-UX would be the only viable option, and there may be a point to having Sage build on HP-UX in that case. But I expect this to be very painful for all involved. For the time being, however, I am resolute on this issue. I don't have the time. If David wants to submit patches (properly formatted) so that FLINT will build on HP-UX, then I'll merge them as I find time, so long as they don't radically change the way FLINT works and don't require extensive changes. Bill. On Feb 1, 5:51 am, Tim Lahey wrote: > On 02-01-2010, at 12:45 AM, Nick Alexander wrote: > > > > > I take issue with the claim that you have done "a LOT" for Sage. Let me be > > clear: I appreciate the effort you put into porting Sage to other > > architectures. But I question how many people are interested in actually > > using Sage on those architectures. You can read the obvious frustration > > Bill Hart feels around supporting flint and other software on these unusual > > architectures. I want to make it clear that he is not the only one > > frustrated with the recent emphasis on porting issues that are unlikely to > > affect me. > > Solaris isn't exactly an "unusual" architecture. That's what he's done the > most at > supporting. He certainly has done "a LOT" at supporting it. I think what he's > asking > that Bill not purposely break FLINT since it does currently work. > > > By and large, we are a community of mathematicians. Correct me if I'm > > wrong, but you are not contributing to the mathematical aspects of Sage. > > Until that changes, your goals and my goals are only occasionally aligned. > > I hate to think that the only people that are valid contributors to Sage are > mathematicians. So, doing the release management, fixing bugs, documentation, > or > maintaining the web site aren't important? > > Cheers, > > Tim. > > --- > Tim Lahey > PhD Candidate, Systems Design Engineering > University of Waterloohttp://www.linkedin.com/in/timlahey -- 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
[sage-devel] Re: Supported Platforms web page is *very* out of date
Sorry, I need to be more clear. We aren't going to purposely break anything. And if you wish to maintain MPIR on HP-UX and PA-RISC, then you are more than welcome. The only reason it passes all the self tests at the moment is that we removed a good proportion of the broken assembly language. The likelihood is that we'll remove all the assembly language. This won't stop it building or passing tests, it'll just take slightly longer to run make check and slightly less time to build. Our reasons for removing the assembly code are complicated, but sound. As this is not a targeted platform, for either Sage or MPIR it shouldn't actually affect anybody in a negative way, as no one is genuinely going to be using MPIR for actual computations on that platform. The main point here is that even if HP-UX does become a supported platform (because Linux on Itanium goes south), HP-UX on PA-RISC will never become a supported platform. That at least, is very dead, even according to HP. Bill. On Feb 1, 4:27 am, David Kirkby wrote: > On 31 January 2010 14:27, Bill Hart wrote: > > > I don't see any point listing HP-UX. That platform died in 2004. I saw > > its grave. > > > Here is one of the many obituaries: > > >http://www.chillingeffects.org/responses/notice.cgi?NoticeID=1460 > > > I see you suggested Sage switch to GMP for an HP-UX port. > > Yes, but now I find MPIR does build and pass all tests on HP-UX, I > would retract that - like all web pages, that one is a bit out of > date. > > > Well, not > > only will MPIR not be supporting HP-UX, but some time between now and > > March this year, we will be removing the assembly support for the PA- > > RISC processors. Recently we found an actual PA-RISC machine (though > > not running HP-UX) and the assembly code was totally broken. No one > > has stepped forward to work on fixing it. No one we now has the > > expertise. > > MPIR does pass all tests on the PA-RISC. Give it is working, is it a > good idea to purposely break it? The fact it failed on your PA-RISC > machine which was not running the normal operating system for such a > platform, which is HP-UX, > > > We'll also be removing the assembly support for a plethora of other > > platforms that have long died, even their manufacturers disowning > > them. The rule will be: if people aren't using it, and we don't have > > access to one and it is more than a certain number of years old, > > support will be discontinued. Supporting dead architectures is a > > massive waste of developer effort. > > I'm not asking you to support them. Just leave them running if they > work. PA-RISC on HP-UX does work. > > > We urgently need ports to Solaris 64 bit > > which I am working on, though concentrating on Open Solaris. One > reason for doing that is that I have much faster hardware on > OpenSolaris. I expect once the 64-bit issues are resolved on Open > Solaris, and assuming we can get the 32-bit working again (broken in > 4.3.1), I think there is every chance a 64-bit port will occur on > SPARC. But perhaps not just now. > > I think I've done a LOT for Sage - I would request you do not > purposely break the PA-RISC support in MPIR, when it clearly passes > all your self tests on HP-UX. I do not believe thiat is an > unreasonable request. > > If someone tells you they use something, and it works for them, why go > out of the way to break it for them? > > Dave. -- 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
Re: [sage-devel] Re: Supported Platforms web page is *very* out of date
On 31-Jan-10, at 11:35 PM, Peter Jeremy wrote: On 2010-Jan-31 22:02:19 -0800, Nick Alexander wrote: Not at all. But take away mathematics, and we don't have a *product*. Take away release management, fixing bugs, documentation, or maintaining the web site and we have an inferior project, but we still have a project. Take away support for Solaris or HP-UX, and we don't serve what appears, to me, to be a small market. (Certainly small compared to the potential pool of Microsoft Windows users.) IMHO, that's a particularly unhelpful attitude. Who said that was my attitude? I explicitly recognized David's efforts on our behalf. But notice: in your reply, the one thing you didn't subject to your thought experiment was Solaris support! I think I am done with this thread. I have put in my two cents; I think everyone reading this thread knows that at least one sage developer is not thrilled with the additional burden that Solaris/HPUX/ platform X support puts on the project. I'm certainly not intending to agitate against your efforts -- but I would like that the cost that comes with them be recognized, and, when reasonable, debated. Nick -- 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
Re: [sage-devel] Re: Supported Platforms web page is *very* out of date
On 2010-Jan-31 22:02:19 -0800, Nick Alexander wrote: >Not at all. But take away mathematics, and we don't have a >*product*. Take away release management, fixing bugs, documentation, >or maintaining the web site and we have an inferior project, but we >still have a project. Take away support for Solaris or HP-UX, and we >don't serve what appears, to me, to be a small market. (Certainly >small compared to the potential pool of Microsoft Windows users.) IMHO, that's a particularly unhelpful attitude. Take away the web site and none of your potential users will know about your product or be able to find/download it. Take away documentation and no-one will know how to use it. Take away bug fixes and no-one can trust the results returned by your product. Take away release management and no-one can be sure whether the version they are running has specific bugs fixed or not and what environment the product should run in. Maybe you'd still have a project, but it wouldn't be one that was of much use to anyone: If by some chance you managed to find an executable and worked out how to drive it, it might be able to produce an output very quickly but by the time you'd double-checked the calculation, you might as well have done it by hand to start with. -- Peter Jeremy pgpxT0fyPN0OP.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [sage-devel] Re: Supported Platforms web page is *very* out of date
On 1 February 2010 05:51, Tim Lahey wrote: > Solaris isn't exactly an "unusual" architecture. That's what he's done the > most at > supporting. He certainly has done "a LOT" at supporting it. I think what he's > asking > that Bill not purposely break FLINT since it does currently work. If was MPIR I was requesting Bill did not purposely break, as that works. I am not sure of the situation with Flint. > I hate to think that the only people that are valid contributors to Sage are > mathematicians. So, doing the release management, fixing bugs, documentation, > or > maintaining the web site aren't important? > > Cheers, > > Tim. Thank you Tim. Dave -- 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
Re: [sage-devel] Re: Supported Platforms web page is *very* out of date
On 1 February 2010 06:02, Nick Alexander wrote: >> I hate to think that the only people that are valid contributors to Sage >> are >> mathematicians. So, doing the release management, fixing bugs, >> documentation, or >> maintaining the web site aren't important? > > Not at all. But take away mathematics, and we don't have a *product*. Take > away release management, fixing bugs, documentation, or maintaining the web > site and we have an inferior project, but we still have a project. Without a web site, it would not be a product available to anyone easily. > Take > away support for Solaris or HP-UX, and we don't serve what appears, to me, > to be a small market. (Certainly small compared to the potential pool of > Microsoft Windows users.) Sun have donated a T5240, which William accepted. They have also given him significant hardware discounts on other items. The main file server, 'disk' is a Sun running Open Solaris. I believe sage.math is a Sun running Linux, though I am not sure of that fact. Only the other week, Willaim sent me an email telling me how important it was to get the Solaris port completed. I'm not denying the Windows port would get more users. than Solaris. People are working on the Cygwin port. I have no intension of running Sage on HP-UX. But I do believe that by making code more portable, one does uncover bugs which do not show up on one platform, but wait to hit you at a later date. I once spent ages trying to trac down a bug on AIX, which was not reproducible, but did occasionally occur. When I eventually found the bug, I realised it would have affected any platform (including Linux), but had just not showed up before. An ex-colleage who tested his code on a quad processor SPARC for the first time, found a bug which could have affected him on Linux, but he had not noticed it. Dave -- 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
Re: [sage-devel] Re: Supported Platforms web page is *very* out of date
By and large, we are a community of mathematicians. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you are not contributing to the mathematical aspects of Sage. Until that changes, your goals and my goals are only occasionally aligned. I hate to think that the only people that are valid contributors to Sage are mathematicians. So, doing the release management, fixing bugs, documentation, or maintaining the web site aren't important? Not at all. But take away mathematics, and we don't have a *product*. Take away release management, fixing bugs, documentation, or maintaining the web site and we have an inferior project, but we still have a project. Take away support for Solaris or HP-UX, and we don't serve what appears, to me, to be a small market. (Certainly small compared to the potential pool of Microsoft Windows users.) Nick -- 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
Re: [sage-devel] Re: Supported Platforms web page is *very* out of date
On 02-01-2010, at 12:45 AM, Nick Alexander wrote: > > I take issue with the claim that you have done "a LOT" for Sage. Let me be > clear: I appreciate the effort you put into porting Sage to other > architectures. But I question how many people are interested in actually > using Sage on those architectures. You can read the obvious frustration Bill > Hart feels around supporting flint and other software on these unusual > architectures. I want to make it clear that he is not the only one > frustrated with the recent emphasis on porting issues that are unlikely to > affect me. > Solaris isn't exactly an "unusual" architecture. That's what he's done the most at supporting. He certainly has done "a LOT" at supporting it. I think what he's asking that Bill not purposely break FLINT since it does currently work. > By and large, we are a community of mathematicians. Correct me if I'm wrong, > but you are not contributing to the mathematical aspects of Sage. Until that > changes, your goals and my goals are only occasionally aligned. I hate to think that the only people that are valid contributors to Sage are mathematicians. So, doing the release management, fixing bugs, documentation, or maintaining the web site aren't important? Cheers, Tim. --- Tim Lahey PhD Candidate, Systems Design Engineering University of Waterloo http://www.linkedin.com/in/timlahey -- 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
Re: [sage-devel] Re: Supported Platforms web page is *very* out of date
I think I've done a LOT for Sage - I would request you do not purposely break the PA-RISC support in MPIR, when it clearly passes all your self tests on HP-UX. I do not believe thiat is an unreasonable request. I take issue with the claim that you have done "a LOT" for Sage. Let me be clear: I appreciate the effort you put into porting Sage to other architectures. But I question how many people are interested in actually using Sage on those architectures. You can read the obvious frustration Bill Hart feels around supporting flint and other software on these unusual architectures. I want to make it clear that he is not the only one frustrated with the recent emphasis on porting issues that are unlikely to affect me. By and large, we are a community of mathematicians. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you are not contributing to the mathematical aspects of Sage. Until that changes, your goals and my goals are only occasionally aligned. Nick Alexander -- 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
Re: [sage-devel] Re: Supported Platforms web page is *very* out of date
On 31 January 2010 14:27, Bill Hart wrote: > I don't see any point listing HP-UX. That platform died in 2004. I saw > its grave. > > Here is one of the many obituaries: > > http://www.chillingeffects.org/responses/notice.cgi?NoticeID=1460 The latest release of HP-UX was September 2009 - 4 months ago. http://h20338.www2.hp.com/enterprise/w1/en/os/hpux11i-v3-update5-overview.html Typing HP-UX into Google I get 5,800,000 hits. > some time between now and > March this year, we will be removing the assembly support for the PA- > RISC processors. Recently we found an actual PA-RISC machine (though > not running HP-UX) and the assembly code was totally broken. No one > has stepped forward to work on fixing it. No one we now has the > expertise. I would request you do not, given MPIR works and passes all tests on HP-UX with at least the PA-RISC processor - I do not know about Itanium. Dave -- 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
Re: [sage-devel] Re: Supported Platforms web page is *very* out of date
On 31 January 2010 14:27, Bill Hart wrote: > I don't see any point listing HP-UX. That platform died in 2004. I saw > its grave. > > Here is one of the many obituaries: > > http://www.chillingeffects.org/responses/notice.cgi?NoticeID=1460 > > I see you suggested Sage switch to GMP for an HP-UX port. Yes, but now I find MPIR does build and pass all tests on HP-UX, I would retract that - like all web pages, that one is a bit out of date. > Well, not > only will MPIR not be supporting HP-UX, but some time between now and > March this year, we will be removing the assembly support for the PA- > RISC processors. Recently we found an actual PA-RISC machine (though > not running HP-UX) and the assembly code was totally broken. No one > has stepped forward to work on fixing it. No one we now has the > expertise. MPIR does pass all tests on the PA-RISC. Give it is working, is it a good idea to purposely break it? The fact it failed on your PA-RISC machine which was not running the normal operating system for such a platform, which is HP-UX, > We'll also be removing the assembly support for a plethora of other > platforms that have long died, even their manufacturers disowning > them. The rule will be: if people aren't using it, and we don't have > access to one and it is more than a certain number of years old, > support will be discontinued. Supporting dead architectures is a > massive waste of developer effort. I'm not asking you to support them. Just leave them running if they work. PA-RISC on HP-UX does work. > We urgently need ports to Solaris 64 bit which I am working on, though concentrating on Open Solaris. One reason for doing that is that I have much faster hardware on OpenSolaris. I expect once the 64-bit issues are resolved on Open Solaris, and assuming we can get the 32-bit working again (broken in 4.3.1), I think there is every chance a 64-bit port will occur on SPARC. But perhaps not just now. I think I've done a LOT for Sage - I would request you do not purposely break the PA-RISC support in MPIR, when it clearly passes all your self tests on HP-UX. I do not believe thiat is an unreasonable request. If someone tells you they use something, and it works for them, why go out of the way to break it for them? Dave. -- 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
[sage-devel] Re: Supported Platforms web page is *very* out of date
Ah! http://www.linux.com/news/enterprise/biz-enterprise/266916-red-hat-pulls-plug-on-itanium-with-rhel-6 That leaves debian, which still supports it officially, unofficial support on Ubuntu and support for ia32 on SUSE. But that leads me to question the future of ia64 itself. I don't personally believe HP will keep it alive for long. Bill. On Jan 31, 6:28 pm, Bill Hart wrote: > OK, I did some reading and I now see the point of the question. > > At this point I don't see any problem with Linux on Itanium 2. For > example the gcc build farm contains an Itanium 2 (though no longer an > Itanium), and gcc itself support Itanium 2, as does the assembler > (obviously). > > Are there any articles which you could point me to which might change > my mind about Linux on Itanium? > > Certainly if Linux didn't have a future on Itanium, then that would > indeed be relevant. > > Bill. > > On Jan 31, 3:28 pm, William Stein wrote: > > > > > On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 6:27 AM, Bill Hart > > wrote: > > > I don't see any point listing HP-UX. That platform died in 2004. I saw > > > its grave. > > > > Here is one of the many obituaries: > > > >http://www.chillingeffects.org/responses/notice.cgi?NoticeID=1460 > > > > I see you suggested Sage switch to GMP for an HP-UX port. Well, not > > > only will MPIR not be supporting HP-UX, but some time between now and > > > March this year, we will be removing the assembly support for the PA- > > > RISC processors. Recently we found an actual PA-RISC machine (though > > > not running HP-UX) and the assembly code was totally broken. No one > > > has stepped forward to work on fixing it. No one we now has the > > > expertise. > > > > We'll also be removing the assembly support for a plethora of other > > > platforms that have long died, even their manufacturers disowning > > > them. The rule will be: if people aren't using it, and we don't have > > > access to one and it is more than a certain number of years old, > > > support will be discontinued. Supporting dead architectures is a > > > massive waste of developer effort. > > > > We urgently need ports to Solaris 64 bit and to Windows Vista and and > > > Windows 7, 32 and 64 bit. We should be focusing all our efforts on > > > these important ports, instead of dead platforms/architectures like > > > AIX, HP-UX and TRU64. > > > > Bill. > > > In your mind, is Linux on Itanium2 dead or alive? > > > 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
[sage-devel] Re: Supported Platforms web page is *very* out of date
OK, I did some reading and I now see the point of the question. At this point I don't see any problem with Linux on Itanium 2. For example the gcc build farm contains an Itanium 2 (though no longer an Itanium), and gcc itself support Itanium 2, as does the assembler (obviously). Are there any articles which you could point me to which might change my mind about Linux on Itanium? Certainly if Linux didn't have a future on Itanium, then that would indeed be relevant. Bill. On Jan 31, 3:28 pm, William Stein wrote: > On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 6:27 AM, Bill Hart > wrote: > > I don't see any point listing HP-UX. That platform died in 2004. I saw > > its grave. > > > Here is one of the many obituaries: > > >http://www.chillingeffects.org/responses/notice.cgi?NoticeID=1460 > > > I see you suggested Sage switch to GMP for an HP-UX port. Well, not > > only will MPIR not be supporting HP-UX, but some time between now and > > March this year, we will be removing the assembly support for the PA- > > RISC processors. Recently we found an actual PA-RISC machine (though > > not running HP-UX) and the assembly code was totally broken. No one > > has stepped forward to work on fixing it. No one we now has the > > expertise. > > > We'll also be removing the assembly support for a plethora of other > > platforms that have long died, even their manufacturers disowning > > them. The rule will be: if people aren't using it, and we don't have > > access to one and it is more than a certain number of years old, > > support will be discontinued. Supporting dead architectures is a > > massive waste of developer effort. > > > We urgently need ports to Solaris 64 bit and to Windows Vista and and > > Windows 7, 32 and 64 bit. We should be focusing all our efforts on > > these important ports, instead of dead platforms/architectures like > > AIX, HP-UX and TRU64. > > > Bill. > > In your mind, is Linux on Itanium2 dead or alive? > > 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
[sage-devel] Re: Supported Platforms web page is *very* out of date
I've posted a list of arches/compilers/OSes that MPIR currently does/ perhaps should support, in another thread. That should answer the question, I think. On Jan 31, 3:28 pm, William Stein wrote: > On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 6:27 AM, Bill Hart > wrote: > > I don't see any point listing HP-UX. That platform died in 2004. I saw > > its grave. > > > Here is one of the many obituaries: > > >http://www.chillingeffects.org/responses/notice.cgi?NoticeID=1460 > > > I see you suggested Sage switch to GMP for an HP-UX port. Well, not > > only will MPIR not be supporting HP-UX, but some time between now and > > March this year, we will be removing the assembly support for the PA- > > RISC processors. Recently we found an actual PA-RISC machine (though > > not running HP-UX) and the assembly code was totally broken. No one > > has stepped forward to work on fixing it. No one we now has the > > expertise. > > > We'll also be removing the assembly support for a plethora of other > > platforms that have long died, even their manufacturers disowning > > them. The rule will be: if people aren't using it, and we don't have > > access to one and it is more than a certain number of years old, > > support will be discontinued. Supporting dead architectures is a > > massive waste of developer effort. > > > We urgently need ports to Solaris 64 bit and to Windows Vista and and > > Windows 7, 32 and 64 bit. We should be focusing all our efforts on > > these important ports, instead of dead platforms/architectures like > > AIX, HP-UX and TRU64. > > > Bill. > > In your mind, is Linux on Itanium2 dead or alive? > > 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
Re: [sage-devel] Re: Supported Platforms web page is *very* out of date
On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 6:27 AM, Bill Hart wrote: > I don't see any point listing HP-UX. That platform died in 2004. I saw > its grave. > > Here is one of the many obituaries: > > http://www.chillingeffects.org/responses/notice.cgi?NoticeID=1460 > > I see you suggested Sage switch to GMP for an HP-UX port. Well, not > only will MPIR not be supporting HP-UX, but some time between now and > March this year, we will be removing the assembly support for the PA- > RISC processors. Recently we found an actual PA-RISC machine (though > not running HP-UX) and the assembly code was totally broken. No one > has stepped forward to work on fixing it. No one we now has the > expertise. > > We'll also be removing the assembly support for a plethora of other > platforms that have long died, even their manufacturers disowning > them. The rule will be: if people aren't using it, and we don't have > access to one and it is more than a certain number of years old, > support will be discontinued. Supporting dead architectures is a > massive waste of developer effort. > > We urgently need ports to Solaris 64 bit and to Windows Vista and and > Windows 7, 32 and 64 bit. We should be focusing all our efforts on > these important ports, instead of dead platforms/architectures like > AIX, HP-UX and TRU64. > > Bill. In your mind, is Linux on Itanium2 dead or alive? 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
[sage-devel] Re: Supported Platforms web page is *very* out of date
I don't see any point listing HP-UX. That platform died in 2004. I saw its grave. Here is one of the many obituaries: http://www.chillingeffects.org/responses/notice.cgi?NoticeID=1460 I see you suggested Sage switch to GMP for an HP-UX port. Well, not only will MPIR not be supporting HP-UX, but some time between now and March this year, we will be removing the assembly support for the PA- RISC processors. Recently we found an actual PA-RISC machine (though not running HP-UX) and the assembly code was totally broken. No one has stepped forward to work on fixing it. No one we now has the expertise. We'll also be removing the assembly support for a plethora of other platforms that have long died, even their manufacturers disowning them. The rule will be: if people aren't using it, and we don't have access to one and it is more than a certain number of years old, support will be discontinued. Supporting dead architectures is a massive waste of developer effort. We urgently need ports to Solaris 64 bit and to Windows Vista and and Windows 7, 32 and 64 bit. We should be focusing all our efforts on these important ports, instead of dead platforms/architectures like AIX, HP-UX and TRU64. Bill. On Jan 31, 10:44 am, "Dr. David Kirkby" wrote: > http://wiki.sagemath.org/SupportedPlatforms > > is very out of date. This is no criticism o the web master - I know only too > well it is next to impossible to keep a web site up to date. > > Here are the points. > > 1) Solaris 9 on Sparc 32 bit (ongoing, getting close, mabshoff is working on > this) > > Truth: mabshoff has left. > > Unless someone else comes along and does some work, I can't see this really > happening. > > 2) Solaris 9 on Sparc 64 bit (work will start on this once the 32 bit port > works > > Truth: Nobody is making any effort on this front. > > 3) Solaris 10 on Sparc 32 bit (ongoing, getting close, mabshoff is working on > this) > > Truth: Solaris 10 32-bit SPARC builds easily on 4.3.0.1, though some test > failures are observed, which need to be resolved. > > 4) Solaris 10 on Sparc 64 bit (work will start on this once the 32 bit port > works) > > Truth: Open Solaris 64-bit is seen as a higher priority, but one might expect > that 64-bit Solaris 10 on SPARC will work at some point. > > 5) Solaris 10 on x86 32 bit, Opteron/EMT64 32 bit (ongoing, getting close, > mabshoff is working on this) > > Truth: Nobody is working on a Solaris 10 32-bit x86 port and I doubt they ever > will. We are going directly to 64-bit, and certainly will not bother then > making > a 32-bit build. > > 6) Solaris 10 on Opteron/EMT64 64 bit (work will start on this once the 32 bit > port works) > > Truth. Active development for a 64-bit Open Solaris build, which will run on > any > modern processor from Intel or AMD. > > 7) BSD support on x86, x86-64: most likely FreeBSD > Truth. There is active development for a FreeBSD port, but not for the other > BSDs' > > 8) the AIX 64 bit port is in the early stages - it can be followed at The AIX > 64 > bit port page > > Truth: Nobody is seriously working on an AIX port. > > 9) I am actually putting some effort into an HP-UX port. Whether this ever > gets > completed is another matter. Details at > > http://wiki.sagemath.org/HP-UX > > Dave -- 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
