On Sat, 2024-04-20 at 15:01 -0700, kcrisman wrote:
>
> Can someone who is not Dima or Matthias explain to us how it is possible
> that they both are claiming to represent the normal Python way of doing
> things? There have been numerous statements by both of them about this,
> which makes it
On Sat, 2024-04-20 at 12:53 -0700, Emmanuel Charpentier wrote:
>
> Do we have the manpower necessary to such development ? .
Linux distributions (or e.g. Conda) already do it for us.
What we don't have is the manpower to do what we currently do, but
*correctly*. The sage distribution sucks.
By choosing to be an exception in the Python world,
Sage obviously does something quite wrong.
Can someone who is not Dima or Matthias explain to us how it is possible
that they both are claiming to represent the normal Python way of doing
things? There have been numerous statements by
On 20 April 2024 19:34:49 BST, Matthias Koeppe wrote:
>On Saturday, April 20, 2024 at 12:56:30 AM UTC-7 Martin R wrote:
>
>do I understand correctly that common lisp (via maxima) is the main
>dependency that prevents sagemath from being pip-installable?
>
>
>No.
>
>For one, SageMath is
I’d like to point out that Sage, by it’s very nature, *is* a large bundle
of other people’s packages, offering them a (more or less) unified
interface, thus ensuring interoperability. To reuse a simile used in Sage’s
initial statements of intent, Sage is a car using many already- pepared
On Saturday, April 20, 2024 at 12:56:30 AM UTC-7 Martin R wrote:
do I understand correctly that common lisp (via maxima) is the main
dependency that prevents sagemath from being pip-installable?
No.
For one, SageMath is already pip-installable.
That was one of the first deliverables of the
I've filed https://github.com/sagemath/sage/issues/37838
On Sat, Apr 20, 2024 at 5:34 PM Dima Pasechnik wrote:
> This is due to https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/37495
> Sorry, this is the usual careless reviewing of late, preventing people
> from using their own Singular (too "new")
> The
This is due to https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/37495
Sorry, this is the usual careless reviewing of late, preventing people
from using their own Singular (too "new")
The check should have been conditional on building Sage's own Singular -
otherwise it should have been ignored.
You can
On Sat, 2024-04-20 at 10:07 +0100, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
>
> Apart from Lisp, there is GAP (with the corresponding effort stalled).
>
> That's what is much more urgent than attempting to slice up the maths
> functionality of sagelib.
>
Also the ancient copy of ginac/pynac we bundle.
--
You
Dima Pasechnik schrieb am Samstag, 20. April 2024 um 17:57:05 UTC+2:
[...] well, this looks relevant. "any of gmp ntl flint readline mpfr
cddlib is installed as or will be installed as SPKG"
these are Singular's dependencies, and possibly not all of them are on your
OS.
In particular, flint is
On Friday, April 19, 2024 at 12:34:06 PM UTC-7 Martin R wrote:
why do you introduce distributions sage-graphs, sage-combinat,
sage-categories etc.
Let's follow the link included in my previous message to my June 2023
sage-devel post https://groups.google.com/g/sage-devel/c/kiB32zP3xD4 and
On Friday, April 19, 2024 at 12:36:26 PM UTC+1 Peter Mueller wrote:
@Dima, thanks, I know that though. Nevertheless, I now started from anew
(that is I removed the sage directory and git-cloned sage to make sure that
there are no remains causing trouble). After running configure, the script
Hi Volker,
On Sat, Apr 20, 2024 at 10:22 AM Volker Braun wrote:
> Yes in a perfect world, but then you don't get a gold star for satisfying
> some purity test. We should just do the minimal amount of work to get us
> where we want to be. Lets focus on the direction to go and not too much on
>
On 20 April 2024 08:56:30 BST, 'Martin R' via sage-devel
wrote:
>A follow-up question: do I understand correctly that common lisp (via
>maxima) is the main dependency that prevents sagemath from being
>pip-installable?
pip install sagemath-standard
already works in a venv on a box with
On Sat, 2024-04-20 at 02:22 -0700, Volker Braun wrote:
> Yes in a perfect world, but then you don't get a gold star for satisfying
> some purity test. We should just do the minimal amount of work to get us
> where we want to be. Lets focus on the direction to go and not too much on
> the
Yes in a perfect world, but then you don't get a gold star for satisfying
some purity test. We should just do the minimal amount of work to get us
where we want to be. Lets focus on the direction to go and not too much on
the process.
On Friday, April 19, 2024 at 7:18:03 PM UTC+2 Michael
On Thursday, April 18, 2024 at 11:05:52 PM UTC-7 Georgi Guninski wrote:
The only sage change I see after the xz drama []
Well, here's one, waiting for review:
https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/37726 (prepared by @faisalfakhro; I
reviewed and made some minor changes) updates the
It was merged because it was positively reviewed.
Neither I nor the merge script reads every ticket description and looks
through the text whether any dependency is mentioned that has not yet been
reviewed. We can try to build such a Rube Goldberg machine, but I would
very much argue against
A follow-up question: do I understand correctly that common lisp (via
maxima) is the main dependency that prevents sagemath from being
pip-installable?
All the best,
Martin
On Friday 19 April 2024 at 21:34:06 UTC+2 Martin R wrote:
> On Friday 19 April 2024 at 20:08:51 UTC+2 Matthias Koeppe
19 matches
Mail list logo
