> Can anyone recommend settings for laying out this graph elegantly in
> Sage? I've also experimented a bit with NetworkX, but my ignorance here
> is deep.
Posets!
See:
http://www.sagenb.org/home/pub/674/
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send email
On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 2:29 PM, mabshoff wrote:
>
>
>
> On Feb 28, 11:27 am, William Stein wrote:
>> On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 3:09 AM, Simon King
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Hi William,
>>
>> > On 28 Feb., 04:49, William Stein wrote:
>> >> You should use Sage in such cases. Type
>> >> sage: email?
>>
On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 9:48 AM, Ondrej Certik wrote:
>
Hi Ondrej,
>> If building openmx really benefits from "make -j" you might consider
>> putting something clever in spkg-install to detect "available cores" and
>> maybe build using them...
>
> Yes, but I need this for all packages, so I t
On Feb 28, 11:27 am, William Stein wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 3:09 AM, Simon King
> wrote:
>
> > Hi William,
>
> > On 28 Feb., 04:49, William Stein wrote:
> >> You should use Sage in such cases. Type
> >> sage: email?
> >> for more details. That uses Twisted behind the scenes.
>
>
On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 3:09 AM, Simon King wrote:
>
> Hi William,
>
> On 28 Feb., 04:49, William Stein wrote:
>> You should use Sage in such cases. Type
>> sage: email?
>> for more details. That uses Twisted behind the scenes.
>
> Very cool -- was my first reaction. But wouldn't this allow
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 7:49 PM, William Stein wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 4:24 PM, Ondrej Certik wrote:
>>
Another thing --- I'd like to create some repository with my packages,
so that people can just "sage -i" install them, without having to
first wget all the spkg and i
Hi William,
On 28 Feb., 04:49, William Stein wrote:
> You should use Sage in such cases. Type
> sage: email?
> for more details. That uses Twisted behind the scenes.
Very cool -- was my first reaction. But wouldn't this allow to turn a
public notebook into a spam-bot? Is there a security fe
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 5:02 PM, mabshoff wrote:
>
>
>
> On Feb 27, 1:58 pm, Ondrej Certik wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 1:36 PM, mabshoff wrote:
>
>
>
>> > Two points:
>>
>> > * just don't call it Sage
>>
>> I won't.
>
> I did not expect you to do that :)
Especially since he asked earli
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 4:24 PM, Ondrej Certik wrote:
>
>>> Another thing --- I'd like to create some repository with my packages,
>>> so that people can just "sage -i" install them, without having to
>>> first wget all the spkg and install them manually. So I thought I
>>> would get my packages
>> I will use BSD for code that I write, unless I am forced otherwise. I
>> think as long as my code runs standalone,
>
> I assume you will have an spkg that contains your BSD licensed code,
> but just uses some bits of the Sage building system to build it. That
> is perfectly legal and does not c
>> > * just don't call it Sage
>>
>> I won't.
But, we will give Sage credit :)
> Yes, absolutely. I just wanted to make sure no one slabbed BSD license
> headers on top of scripts I have significantly contributed to without
> asking (and I did not think of you in that case, but there are other
On Feb 27, 1:58 pm, Ondrej Certik wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 1:36 PM, mabshoff wrote:
> > Two points:
>
> > * just don't call it Sage
>
> I won't.
I did not expect you to do that :)
> > * what license do you want to use for the code from the local/bin
> > repo in Sage? The code in
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 1:36 PM, mabshoff wrote:
>
>
>
> On Feb 27, 1:24 pm, Ondrej Certik wrote:
>
>
>
>> One more question: -- I am trying to take sage-3.3.tar and strip it
>> from unnecessary spkgs that I don't need -- seems to me that I can
>> just delete them?
>
> Yes
>
>> I am learning th
On Feb 27, 1:24 pm, Ondrej Certik wrote:
> One more question: -- I am trying to take sage-3.3.tar and strip it
> from unnecessary spkgs that I don't need -- seems to me that I can
> just delete them?
Yes
> I am learning the dependencies in
> spkg/standard/deps, because it's a bit tricky --
>> Another thing --- I'd like to create some repository with my packages,
>> so that people can just "sage -i" install them, without having to
>> first wget all the spkg and install them manually. So I thought I
>> would get my packages to sage experimental, but is there any procedure
>> for that?
On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 3:08 PM, Ondrej Certik wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I was trying to find if it was discussed before, but didn't find
> anything -- what is your view on spkg dependencies?
>
> It is not that bad so far, but still I need to remember in which order
> to install all my aditional softwar
>> Yes, I know there is some old python. So that's a show stopper.
>
> The Sage community had this discussion before and the answer to any
> proposed change is "NO". We want
>
> * KISS
> * something that only requires a shell to work
> * something that runs on OSX, Linux, Solaris, Cygwin and in
On Feb 23, 3:08 pm, Ondrej Certik wrote:
> Hi,
Hi,
> I was trying to find if it was discussed before, but didn't find
> anything -- what is your view on spkg dependencies?
>
> It is not that bad so far, but still I need to remember in which order
> to install all my aditional software, e.g. c
18 matches
Mail list logo
