The page
http://www.sagemath.org/development-ack.html
lists the funders of various Sage Days up to 23. We are a long way past
that now!
I propose that we crowdsource the problem of getting this up to date. If
you organized a Sage Days since 23, get on GitHub and edit the file:
https:/
2016-04-04 00:25:22 UTC+2, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
>
>
> On Sunday, April 3, 2016 at 9:47:37 PM UTC+1, Volker Braun wrote:
>>
>> On Sunday, April 3, 2016 at 9:30:41 PM UTC+2, Erik Bray wrote:
>>>
>>> On the contrary, I believe requiring someone to build an entirely
>>> separate compiler toolchain
On Sun, Apr 3, 2016 at 10:32 PM, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
>
>
> On Sunday, April 3, 2016 at 8:30:41 PM UTC+1, Erik Bray wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Apr 3, 2016 at 4:45 PM, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
>> > IMHO the pre-reqs needed to build Sage on Linux ought to include
>> > gfortran
>> > and g++ (why not? listin
On Sun, Apr 3, 2016 at 10:47 PM, Volker Braun wrote:
> On Sunday, April 3, 2016 at 9:30:41 PM UTC+2, Erik Bray wrote:
>>
>> On the contrary, I believe requiring someone to build an entirely
>> separate compiler toolchain is more burdensome and both user- and
>> developer-hostile compared to fixing
On Sunday, April 3, 2016 at 9:47:37 PM UTC+1, Volker Braun wrote:
>
> On Sunday, April 3, 2016 at 9:30:41 PM UTC+2, Erik Bray wrote:
>>
>> On the contrary, I believe requiring someone to build an entirely
>> separate compiler toolchain is more burdensome and both user- and
>> developer-hostile
On Sunday, April 3, 2016 at 9:30:41 PM UTC+2, Erik Bray wrote:
>
> On the contrary, I believe requiring someone to build an entirely
> separate compiler toolchain is more burdensome and both user- and
> developer-hostile compared to fixing the issue with that compiler
I.e. getting some older li
On Sunday, April 3, 2016 at 8:30:41 PM UTC+1, Erik Bray wrote:
>
> On Sun, Apr 3, 2016 at 4:45 PM, Dima Pasechnik > wrote:
> > IMHO the pre-reqs needed to build Sage on Linux ought to include
> gfortran
> > and g++ (why not? listing them won't harm, even if the gcc version is
> > blacklisted
+1
--
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 group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com.
Visit
On Sun, Apr 3, 2016 at 4:45 PM, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
> IMHO the pre-reqs needed to build Sage on Linux ought to include gfortran
> and g++ (why not? listing them won't harm, even if the gcc version is
> blacklisted)
>
> This is becoming an issue - there was a post recently about a failure to
> bu
Hi all,
I have already reported the unsatisfactory state of the binomial
function as implemented in Sage on 'Ask Sage' and had opened
a request for enhancement with ticket #17123.
Here I take up a suggestion of John Palmieri to discuss the
issue on this list. The request is:
Extend binomial
On Apr 1, 2016 17:07, "Volker Braun" wrote:
>
> On Friday, April 1, 2016 at 4:19:08 PM UTC+2, Erik Bray wrote:
>>
>> One of my top wishlist items for Python 4 is some kind of __hasattr__
>> special method for classes and/or an equivalent for descriptors that
>> merely guarantees* that accessing th
Thanks, removing the qd package indeed helped to build SageMath. Is it safe
now to install the qd back to the system?
--
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
IMHO the pre-reqs needed to build Sage on Linux ought to include gfortran
and g++ (why not? listing them won't harm, even if the gcc version is
blacklisted)
This is becoming an issue - there was a post recently about a failure to
build Sage on a newish Linux system, with error in building Sage'
Pretty clear that its a dual abi issue, libfplll discovers your system
libqd and decides to link against it. But your system is new enough to use
the new cxx11 abi, whereas the Sage-built gcc is not. Hence linking fails
with undefined std::__cxx11 symbols, as expected.
This is probably going to
14 matches
Mail list logo
