Re: [sage-devel] Re: Tickets #715, #11521 and #12313 need 32 bits testing

I posted a modified patch marking the test as random. Not sure if it should get removed or not. In doubt, it doesn't hurt that much to let it in. Anyway, i don"t think anyone but developers will have a look at these files. On Monday, April 16, 2012 11:27:24 AM UTC+2, Jeroen Demeyer wrote: > > On 2

[sage-devel] Re: Should libssl-dev be a dependency for Sage?

On Tuesday, 17 April 2012 00:16:27 UTC+8, Simon King wrote: > > Hi! > > I try to test the new notebook (see #11080). Unfortunately, it fails > to build. > > According to the comments on the ticket, the development headers for > openssl are missing, and they could be installed by Ubuntu's libs

[sage-devel] Re: reply to Trac via e-mail?

> > Ticket URL: > 8> > > Sage > > Sage: Creating a Viable Open Source Alternative to Magma, Maple, > > Mathematica, and MATLAB > > > How is this not what we are asking for (I mean the first part, not the > > "rep

Re: [sage-devel] Re: reply to Trac via e-mail?

On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 8:50 PM, kcrisman wrote: > > > On Apr 16, 7:55 pm, Robert Bradshaw > wrote: >> On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 6:51 AM, Niles Johnson wrote: >> > Another -- perhaps more trivial -- way to make posting replies on trac >> > easier would be to have each email from trac include a lin

[sage-devel] Re: reply to Trac via e-mail?

On Apr 16, 7:55 pm, Robert Bradshaw wrote: > On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 6:51 AM, Niles Johnson wrote: > > Another -- perhaps more trivial -- way to make posting replies on trac > > easier would be to have each email from trac include a link to the ticket. > > +1. I find it quite surprising and ann

Re: [sage-devel] Sage mini-manual in Catalan

Dear Jordi, On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 7:30 AM, Jordi Guardia Rubies wrote: > Here you have my data: > > Full name: Jordi Guàrdia i Rúbies > Username: jordiguardia > Contact email address: guar...@ma4.upc.edu I have sent you a private email about your login details. > What's the next step? I send

Re: [sage-devel] Re: reply to Trac via e-mail?

On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 6:51 AM, Niles Johnson wrote: > Another -- perhaps more trivial -- way to make posting replies on trac > easier would be to have each email from trac include a link to the ticket. +1. I find it quite surprising and annoying that they don't do this already! (I'd love email

Re: [sage-devel] Re: SPKG Repositories (M4RI(E))

Le dimanche 15 avril, Keshav Kini a écrit: > Martin Albrecht writes: > > 2) unpacks upstream sources (perhaps even as indicated in a file > > tracked by the repository) > > Downloading and unpacking upstream sources from a remote location > indicated in a file tracked by the repository is very go

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Should libssl-dev be a dependency for Sage?

On 2012-04-16 19:47, Simon King wrote: > Hi Jason, > > On 16 Apr., 19:35, Jason Grout wrote: >> If we do that, then we should definitely make the notebook not dependent >> on the optional spkg or pyopenssl. Otherwise we have this weird >> situation where a standard package depends on an optional

[sage-devel] Re: Should libssl-dev be a dependency for Sage?

Hi Jason, On 16 Apr., 19:35, Jason Grout wrote: > If we do that, then we should definitely make the notebook not dependent > on the optional spkg or pyopenssl.  Otherwise we have this weird > situation where a standard package depends on an optional package. I think we could live with that situa

[sage-devel] Re: Should libssl-dev be a dependency for Sage?

On 4/16/12 12:00 PM, William Stein wrote: On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 9:16 AM, Simon King wrote: Hi! I try to test the new notebook (see #11080). Unfortunately, it fails to build. According to the comments on the ticket, the development headers for openssl are missing, and they could be installed

[sage-devel] Re: Should libssl-dev be a dependency for Sage?

Here are some partial answers, taken from #11080: * The optional openssl spkg does install the development headers. * The new sagenb spkg contains pyOpenSSL as a sub-package (which should be fine, since PyOpenSSL's licence APL2 seems to be compatible with GPL). * The new sagenb spkg installs py

Re: [sage-devel] Should libssl-dev be a dependency for Sage?

On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 9:16 AM, Simon King wrote: > Hi! > > I try to test the new notebook (see #11080). Unfortunately, it fails > to build. > > According to the comments on the ticket, the development headers for > openssl are missing, and they could be installed by Ubuntu's libssl- > dev. > > H

Re: [sage-devel] Sage mini-manual in Catalan

Dear Maria, I apologize for the very late reply. On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 8:28 PM, Maria Bras Amoros wrote: > I contacted Jordi Guardia (cc: guar...@ma4.upc.edu), from Universitat > Politècnica de Catalunya, for refereeing my mini sage manual in Catalan. > Should he contact directly you? There's

[sage-devel] Should libssl-dev be a dependency for Sage?

Hi! I try to test the new notebook (see #11080). Unfortunately, it fails to build. According to the comments on the ticket, the development headers for openssl are missing, and they could be installed by Ubuntu's libssl- dev. However, I am not root for the machine in my office, and the sysadmin

[sage-devel] Re: reply to Trac via e-mail?

On Apr 16, 9:51 am, Niles Johnson wrote: > Another -- perhaps more trivial -- way to make posting replies on trac > easier would be to have each email from trac include a link to the ticket. Don't they already have this? >  Even better, include the link for replying to the current comment.  E.

[sage-devel] Re: reply to Trac via e-mail?

Another -- perhaps more trivial -- way to make posting replies on trac easier would be to have each email from trac include a link to the ticket. Even better, include the link for replying to the current comment. E.g. http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/12827?replyto=1#comment I actuall

[sage-devel] Re: Tickets #715, #11521 and #12313 need 32 bits testing

On Apr 16, 6:30 am, John Cremona wrote: > > My very old computer is quite slow, so I am applying the patches now. > > Looks like you're already taken care of, but if anything interesting > > turns up, I'll pass it on. > > #12313 still needs testing, but my 32-bit laptop is at home and I will > not

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Tickets #715, #11521 and #12313 need 32 bits testing

On 16 April 2012 12:20, john_perry_usm wrote: > On Apr 15, 10:33 am, john_perry_usm wrote: >> I can do it. I have a very old 32-bit system that I sometimes use both >> to develop & test patches. > > My very old computer is quite slow, so I am applying the patches now. > Looks like you're already

[sage-devel] Re: Tickets #715, #11521 and #12313 need 32 bits testing

On Apr 15, 10:33 am, john_perry_usm wrote: > I can do it. I have a very old 32-bit system that I sometimes use both > to develop & test patches. My very old computer is quite slow, so I am applying the patches now. Looks like you're already taken care of, but if anything interesting turns up, I'l

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Tickets #715, #11521 and #12313 need 32 bits testing

On 2012-04-16 11:17, Jean-Pierre Flori wrote: > I applied the patches on these two tickets to a new build of > 5.0.beta13 and all long tests passed. I did not get to #12313 yet. > But if that test is sufficient then #714 and #11521 can have positive > > Thanks a lot for spending some

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Tickets #715, #11521 and #12313 need 32 bits testing

> > I applied the patches on these two tickets to a new build of > 5.0.beta13 and all long tests passed. I did not get to #12313 yet. > But if that test is sufficient then #714 and #11521 can have positive > Thanks a lot for spending some time one this. I think #715 and #11521 are quite ready. As

[sage-devel] Updated and fixed MPIR (#11616) needs review

Please review the new MPIR spkg at #11616 (a sage-5.0 *blocker*). It upgrades MPIR to a newer upstream version (2.4.0). But more importantly, there is a big clean-up of the spkg-install file which should also fix various portability issues. Leif started working on this and I have made a reviewer

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Tickets #715, #11521 and #12313 need 32 bits testing

On 15 April 2012 17:40, John Cremona wrote: > I can also test these on my laptop.  I'll first do #715 and #11521 I applied the patches on these two tickets to a new build of 5.0.beta13 and all long tests passed. I did not get to #12313 yet. But if that test is sufficient then #714 and #11521 can

[sage-devel] Re: How are devel/sage and devel/sagenb related?

Simon King writes: > On 15 Apr., 21:03, Simon King wrote: >> On 15 Apr., 20:10, Simon King wrote: >> >> > I'll try it! >> >> I did, but some patches didn't even apply. > > The instructions at #11080 didn't mention that sage-5.0.prealpha0 is > too old. Perhaps I will try again, with sage-5.0.beta

[sage-devel] Re: How are devel/sage and devel/sagenb related?

Simon King writes: > If I am not mistaken, the sageinspect.py file in Sage was first > commited in the release of sage-2.3, March 2007, whereas the file in > sagenb was first commited in September 2009. So, it would have been > logical to use (and extend) sage/misc/sageinspect.py, instead of > cop