On Apr 24, 2:22 am, mark mcclure <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Apr 23, 6:24 pm, mark mcclure <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi Mark,
> make; followed by "sage -ba" seems to have done the trick. Everything
> seems to be working great and "./sage -testall" passed all tests.
>
> I've got a workin
On Apr 23, 6:24 pm, mark mcclure <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Apr 23, 6:17 pm, mabshoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> dortmund.de> wrote:
> > On Apr 24, 12:14 am, mark mcclure <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > The trailing kg is missing. Should I simply change the
> > > name and try again?
>
> > Yes.
On Apr 23, 6:17 pm, mabshoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
dortmund.de> wrote:
> On Apr 24, 12:14 am, mark mcclure <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The trailing kg is missing. Should I simply change the
> > name and try again?
>
> Yes. Run make, then a "sage -b". If Sage starts up all ought be be
> fixed. If
On Apr 24, 12:14 am, mark mcclure <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Apr 23, 6:10 pm, mabshoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> dortmund.de> wrote:
> > for whatever reason there is no Singular in your build log. Right at
> > the top it says:
> > ...
> > Could you check if spkg/standard contains any file call
On Apr 23, 6:10 pm, mabshoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
dortmund.de> wrote:
> for whatever reason there is no Singular in your build log. Right at
> the top it says:
> ...
> Could you check if spkg/standard contains any file called
> singular-3-0-4-2-20080405.p1.spkg, i.e:
No, there's not. Strangely, th
On Apr 23, 11:51 pm, mark mcclure <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Apr 23, 4:43 pm, mabshoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> dortmund.de> wrote:
> > We will be much more aggressive from now on in blacklisting know
> > broken compilers since at least on OSX it should work out of the box
> > because there
On Apr 23, 5:54 pm, "William Stein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Could you type
>./sage -br
> form the SAGE_ROOT directory and send the output?
Sure:
--
sage: Building and installing modified SAGE library files.
Installing c_lib
g++
On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 2:51 PM, mark mcclure <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Apr 23, 4:43 pm, mabshoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> dortmund.de> wrote:
>
> > We will be much more aggressive from now on in blacklisting know
> > broken compilers since at least on OSX it should work out of the box
>
On Apr 23, 4:43 pm, mabshoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
dortmund.de> wrote:
> We will be much more aggressive from now on in blacklisting know
> broken compilers since at least on OSX it should work out of the box
> because there is so little variety of the OS itself and Apple usually
> is the tool chai
On Apr 23, 10:04 pm, mark mcclure <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Apr 23, 3:53 pm, mabshoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> dortmund.de> wrote:
> > This looks like Singular did not build properly.
> >
> > Please post a link to the whole install.log here so I can take a
> > look.
Hi Mark,
> Unfortunat
On Apr 23, 3:53 pm, mabshoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
dortmund.de> wrote:
> This looks like Singular did not build properly.
>
> Please post a link to the whole install.log here so I can take a
> look.
Unfortunately, I no longer have the whole install.log. In hopes of
fixing the problem, I upgraded
On Apr 23, 3:54 pm, mhampton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm not sure what the problem is, probably William Stein or Michael
> Abshoff will be able to answer that, but maybe its simplest to just
> upgrade your gcc with the latest stuff from apple. My gcc is build
> 5465; I'm not sure how they
Hi Mark!
I'm not sure what the problem is, probably William Stein or Michael
Abshoff will be able to answer that, but maybe its simplest to just
upgrade your gcc with the latest stuff from apple. My gcc is build
5465; I'm not sure how they pick those version numbers.
I know you are (or were?) a
On Apr 23, 9:23 pm, mark mcclure <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Apr 23, 1:08 pm, Robert Bradshaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > >> Are their binaries for OS X 10.4?
> > > NO. And there won't be until somebody volunteers to make them.
> > > Can you make them?
>
> > Yes, do I just build and
On Apr 23, 1:08 pm, Robert Bradshaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >> Are their binaries for OS X 10.4?
> > NO. And there won't be until somebody volunteers to make them.
> > Can you make them?
>
> Yes, do I just build and do sage -bdist?
I attempted to compile sage 3.0 on my Mac G5 running OS
I have a MAC OX X 10.4.4 build in process.
Its on a PowerPC (G4)
I'll make it available when it completes.
Tim
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Fo
On Apr 23, 2008, at 10:06 AM, William Stein wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 10:03 AM, Robert Bradshaw
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> Are their binaries for OS X 10.4?
>
> NO. And there won't be until somebody volunteers to make them. See
> my long email about this a few minutes ago in Sa
On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 10:03 AM, Robert Bradshaw
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Are their binaries for OS X 10.4?
NO. And there won't be until somebody volunteers to make them. See
my long email about this a few minutes ago in Sage-support.
Can you make them?
>
> On Apr 23, 2008, at 4:58 A
Are their binaries for OS X 10.4?
On Apr 23, 2008, at 4:58 AM, mabshoff wrote:
>
> [Note: If you are interested in announcements only please subscribe to
> sage-announce. It is limited to roughly one email every ten days.]
>
> Hello folks,
>
> Sage 3.0 has been released on April 21st, 2008. It is
19 matches
Mail list logo
