Re: [sage-devel] help needed with git schlamassel

OK, I tried - I got this from two sources, so I took a chance, yes it did - relief - thank you! Martin Am Mittwoch, 20. September 2017 07:31:54 UTC+2 schrieb Thierry (sage-googlesucks@xxx): > > Hi, > > does 'git trac push --force' work ? > > Ciao, > Thierry > > > > On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at

Re: [sage-devel] help needed with git schlamassel

Hi, does 'git trac push --force' work ? Ciao, Thierry On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 10:19:09PM -0700, 'Martin R' via sage-devel wrote: > Dear git gurus, > > I accidentally pushed a merge to https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/22921. > Locally, I can "undo" this with > > git reset --hard

[sage-devel] help needed with git schlamassel

Dear git gurus, I accidentally pushed a merge to https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/22921. Locally, I can "undo" this with git reset --hard 84093c4bc19d2aa7e353dfa2b2436a5bf56b96b8 but I do now know how to do this on the ticket, and I am afraid of following advice of some random git blog page.

[sage-devel] Including 64-bit-only code in Sage

Currently, some code is unable to be included in Sage (except as an optional package) because it is not 32-bit safe. One example close to my heart is Drew Sutherland's smalljac package for computing L-series of hyperelliptic curves; Drew's position is that "life is too short to worry about

[sage-devel] Consider not upgrading to Xcode 9.0

I just upgraded an OS X box to Xcode 9.0, and now Sage doesn't build: - with a fresh Sage 8.1.beta5 tarball, gcc doesn't build: /Applications/Xcode.app/Contents/Developer/Toolchains/XcodeDefault.xctoolchain/usr/include/c++/v1/functional:1398:2: error: no member named 'fancy_abort' in namespace

[sage-devel] Re: loading ipython at (Sage) python prompt (for debugging)

sage -gdb On Tuesday, September 19, 2017 at 3:47:18 PM UTC+2, Dima Pasechnik wrote: > > Dear all, > For #22679 I need to run Sage from a debugger (lldb or gdb); I know how to > start the debugger with the right executable: > > $ . src/bin/sage-env > $ lldb local/bin/python2.7 > > and then

[sage-devel] Re: [Debian-science-sagemath] A question about SageMath on Debian and MathJax

Hi On 19 September 2017 at 21:18, Jan Groenewald wrote: > Thanks > > On 19 September 2017 at 21:08, Ximin Luo wrote: > >> Samuel Lelièvre: >> > Dear debian-science-sagemath, >> > >> > There is a question on sage-devel about SageMath >> > on Debian and

[sage-devel] Re: [Debian-science-sagemath] A question about SageMath on Debian and MathJax

Thanks On 19 September 2017 at 21:08, Ximin Luo wrote: > Samuel Lelièvre: > > Dear debian-science-sagemath, > > > > There is a question on sage-devel about SageMath > > on Debian and MathJax: > > > > https://groups.google.com/d/topic/sage-devel/sL_iYHfFB2M/discussion > > >

[sage-devel] Re: [Debian-science-sagemath] A question about SageMath on Debian and MathJax

Samuel Lelièvre: > Dear debian-science-sagemath, > > There is a question on sage-devel about SageMath > on Debian and MathJax: > > https://groups.google.com/d/topic/sage-devel/sL_iYHfFB2M/discussion > > Could anyone on this list answer it? > Hi, (I think) the default is actually controlled by

[sage-devel] proposal: remove libogg and libtheora completely from sage

Since the people in the thread "proposal: downgrade libtheora to experimental package" at https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/sage-devel/olOxh1f6-cc were quite in favour of going even further then just downgrading it here a concrete proposal: remove the optional libogg and libtheora

[sage-devel] Re: Signs and graded algebras

Hey John, I'm not quite sure. There are two approaches that come to mind. The first is to implement an analog of CombinatorialFreeModule_Tensor for this setting. Then it is a matter of overriding the Tensor attribute on the classes you want to use for your special tensor multiplication.

Re: [sage-devel] proposal: downgrade libtheora to experimental package

Hi, +1 from me for removing Sage packages that don’t have good maintenance. I’m perhaps viewed as ultimately responsible in some way for these (at least the infrastructure where they sit), and definitely be happier if we don’t distribute anything that we don’t really, really have to. And for

Re: [sage-devel] proposal: downgrade libtheora to experimental package

In fact, libogg and libtheora are sort of frozen; this https://git.xiph.org/?p=theora.git looks quite low-activity, too. On Tuesday, September 19, 2017 at 4:54:20 PM UTC+1, Thierry (sage-googlesucks@xxx) wrote: > > Hi, > > if we are sure that libtheora is of no use, why not just removing it ?

[sage-devel] Re: ecm failed to build

Probably your gmp or mpir was not built correctly: Indeed: /usr/bin/ld: /srv/sage-8.0/local/lib/libgmp.a(fat_entry.o): relocation R_X86_64_32S against symbol `__gmpn_cpuvec' can not be used when making a shared object; recompile with -fPIC Of er is een kat op de muizenberg... :-) On Tuesday,

Re: [sage-devel] proposal: downgrade libtheora to experimental package

Hi, if we are sure that libtheora is of no use, why not just removing it ? The goal of Sage, even Sage-the-distribution, is not to distribute as much as possible (note that there are currently 265 packages). Same question for libogg. See also the thread about "useless" packages with 'pip' type,

Re: [sage-devel] proposal: downgrade libtheora to experimental package

fails on semi-current gentoo: [libtheora-1.1.1] libtool: link: gcc -Wall -Wno-parentheses -O3 -fforce-addr -fomit-frame-pointer -finline-functions -funroll-loops -Wl,-rpath -Wl,/home/dima/Sage/sage-dev/local/lib -o .libs/png2theora png2theora-png2theora.o -L/home/dima/Sage/sage-dev/local/lib

[sage-devel] loading ipython at (Sage) python prompt (for debugging)

Dear all, For #22679 I need to run Sage from a debugger (lldb or gdb); I know how to start the debugger with the right executable: $ . src/bin/sage-env $ lldb local/bin/python2.7 and then issue "run" debugger command to start Python, import Sage, etc. But I don't understand how to load

Re: [sage-devel] proposal: downgrade libtheora to experimental package

On Tuesday, 19 September 2017 15:07:23 UTC+2, vdelecroix wrote: > > On 19/09/2017 14:22, Maarten Derickx wrote: > > > Currently the optional package libtheora fails to install: see > > https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/23732 for details. > > Actually, I also had troubles on Ubuntu 64 bits

Re: [sage-devel] proposal: downgrade libtheora to experimental package

On 19/09/2017 14:22, Maarten Derickx wrote: Hi Fellow sage devs cc Wilfied Huss, Currently the optional package libtheora fails to install: see https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/23732 for details. Actually, I also had troubles on Ubuntu 64 bits (based on debian). I have looked a bit into

[sage-devel] proposal: downgrade libtheora to experimental package

Hi Fellow sage devs cc Wilfied Huss, Currently the optional package libtheora fails to install: see https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/23732 for details. I have looked a bit into this, and I could not find a place where this package actually enhances the sage library so this would just be a

[sage-devel] groebner walk

Hello, on http://doc.sagemath.org/html/en/reference/polynomial_rings/sage/rings/polynomial/multi_polynomial_ideal.html is an examle, how to use Gröbner walk. sage: R.=PolynomialRing(GF(32003),3,order='lex') sage: I=Ideal([y^3+x*y*z+y^2*z+x*z^3,3+x*y+x^2*y+y^2*z]) sage:

Re: [sage-devel] Re: From SageNB to jupyter

On Thu, 7 Sep 2017, Dima Pasechnik wrote: did you see this:https://benjamin-hackl.at/2016/01/16/jupyterhub-with-sagemath-kernel/ It seems that all of the requirements you list are there... Not sharing notebooks, but it seems that it has been done later:

[sage-devel] How to configure default mathjax rendering method in jupyter notebook

Hi I am running the debian 9 packaged sagemath-common and sagemath-jupyter. This gives a jupyter notebook which can open sage-7.4 worksheets. LaTeX is rendering horribly by default: short ugly integral signs shorter than the expression that follows, and broken square root signs, amongst other.

[sage-devel] Re: Faster way to load python code

Hi Simon, Simon King wrote: > Is there a faster way to read and evaluate a large python code > block than sage.repl.load.load? I think %runfile is somewhat faster, though not exactly fast. -- Marc -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel"