Re: [sage-release] Re: Sage 10.3.beta1 released

2023-12-12 Thread 'tsc...@ucdavis.edu' via sage-release
not compatible (yet) with flint-3.0.0, see > https://github.com/flatsurf/e-antic/issues/263 > > On Tue, 12 Dec 2023 at 08:32, 'tsc...@ucdavis.edu' via sage-release > wrote: > > > > I am having an issue building e_antic that was not present for building > 10.2 from sou

[sage-release] Re: Sage 10.3.beta1 released

2023-12-11 Thread 'tsc...@ucdavis.edu' via sage-release
I am having an issue building e_antic that was not present for building 10.2 from source. I've included the log file below. I first tried without installing anything extra and then with a system libantic installation. Both resulted in the same log file. Best, Travis Using cached file /home/tra

Re: [sage-release] Re: Sage 10.1.beta3 released

2023-06-15 Thread 'tsc...@ucdavis.edu' via sage-release
I don't think it should be random; that has the chance of hiding actual bugs. I think we should check that it belongs to a particular set (specifically, the one from John's comment). Best, Travis On Thursday, June 15, 2023 at 5:15:52 AM UTC+9 chris wuthrich wrote: > I agree with John. Lines 2

Re: [sage-release] Sage 10.0.rc0 released

2023-04-24 Thread 'tsc...@ucdavis.edu' via sage-release
Volker, if you're going to do another rc version, would it be possible to also include #35432? It contains an important fix for #35036 that will be added to 10.0. Thanks, Travis On Tuesday, April 25, 2023 at 5:57:10 AM UTC+9 Kenji Iohara wrote: > On Mac 0S 13.3.1with Intel Core i5, updated ho

Re: [sage-release] Re: Sage 9.8.beta7 released

2023-01-23 Thread 'tsc...@ucdavis.edu' via sage-release
Thank you, that worked. Best, Travis On Tuesday, January 24, 2023 at 11:28:48 AM UTC+9 matthia...@gmail.com wrote: > ./configure --without-system-nauty > > On Monday, January 23, 2023 at 4:30:05 PM UTC-8 tsc...@ucdavis.edu wrote: > >> Would it be better to just remove nauty or is there a way

Re: [sage-release] Re: Sage 9.8.beta7 released

2023-01-23 Thread 'tsc...@ucdavis.edu' via sage-release
Would it be better to just remove nauty or is there a way to force Sage to build and link with its own copy of nauty? Thanks, Travis On Monday, January 23, 2023 at 6:51:45 PM UTC+9 François Bissey wrote: > It is indeed a known issue with nauty on debian/ubuntu. That's the first > time someone

[sage-release] Re: Sage 9.8.beta7 released

2023-01-23 Thread 'tsc...@ucdavis.edu' via sage-release
I am getting stuck at giac, even after a make distclean (I rebuilt 9.8.beta6 just to confirm this is a problem with the upgrade and almost certainly due to #34857). Sorry for posting the log files; I can't seem to include attachments... [giac-1.9.0.15p0] /usr/bin/ld: /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-linux-

[sage-release] Re: Sage 9.8.beta2 released

2022-10-18 Thread 'tsc...@ucdavis.edu' via sage-release
I am not able to do an incremental build. Do we really need to do a "make distclean" because of #34268? Best, Travis On Monday, October 17, 2022 at 7:56:17 AM UTC+9 Volker Braun wrote: > As always, you can get the latest beta version from the "develop" git > branch. Alternatively, the self-co

[sage-release] Re: Sage 9.8.beta1 released

2022-10-06 Thread 'tsc...@ucdavis.edu' via sage-release
This is https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/34635. Best, Travis On Friday, September 30, 2022 at 8:15:55 PM UTC+9 emanuel.c...@gmail.com wrote: > On Debian testing running non core i5 + 8 GB RAM, upgrading 9.7 to > 9.8.beta1 leads to one permanent failure : > > charpent@p-202-021:/usr/local/sage

[sage-release] Re: Sage 9.7.rc0 released

2022-09-09 Thread 'tsc...@ucdavis.edu' via sage-release
I just tried additionally installing gap_packages, and this seemed to be fine. I don't know what caused it to rebuild everything, but it seems to be fine/transient. Best, Travis On Thursday, September 8, 2022 at 1:45:13 AM UTC+9 John H Palmieri wrote: > I just tried this, and I didn't see the

Re: [sage-release] Sage 9.7.rc1 released

2022-09-09 Thread 'tsc...@ucdavis.edu' via sage-release
> > The first one succeeds when run alone, as usual. > The second one is known (see https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/33212). > But the third one seems to be persistent: > sage -t --long --warn-long 51.2 > --random-seed=198215171617055102915898533596178546091 > src/sage/structure/coerce_actions.p

[sage-release] Re: Sage 9.7.rc0 released

2022-09-06 Thread 'tsc...@ucdavis.edu' via sage-release
I just did a build from scratch using "make build", started Sage, and then "./sage -i dot2tex" and it seems to be rebuilding everything. Is this expected? I haven't explicitly tested this on previous beta versions, but this seems like a bug. I am a bit hesitant to try it out on other packages a

[sage-release] Re: Sage 9.7.beta8 released

2022-08-13 Thread 'tsc...@ucdavis.edu' via sage-release
One thing I (and probably Martin) would really appreciate if it could be included in the next stable release is https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/32324, which does lazy multivariate power series rings (with the eventual intent to replace LazyPowerSeriesRing). Best, Travis On Monday, August 8,

[sage-release] Re: Sage 9.7.beta3 released

2022-06-24 Thread 'tsc...@ucdavis.edu' via sage-release
> Is anyone else seeing docbuilding issues? I am getting > > [sagemath_doc_html-none] __import__(module_name) > [sagemath_doc_html-none] ModuleNotFoundError: No module named > 'sage.combinat.nu_dyck_word' > > which is resulting the doc not building for me via "make". I have also run > "make

[sage-release] Re: Sage 9.7.beta3 released

2022-06-24 Thread 'tsc...@ucdavis.edu' via sage-release
Is anyone else seeing docbuilding issues? I am getting [sagemath_doc_html-none] __import__(module_name) [sagemath_doc_html-none] ModuleNotFoundError: No module named 'sage.combinat.nu_dyck_word' which is resulting the doc not building for me via "make". I have also run "make doc-clean" and

[sage-release] Re: Sage 9.7.beta3 released

2022-06-20 Thread 'tsc...@ucdavis.edu' via sage-release
I don't know when these errors started to appear, but I am getting the following failures: Using --optional=4ti2,bliss,coxeter3,debian,e_antic,fricas,gap_packages,latte_int,libsemigroups,lidia,meataxe,normaliz,pip,sage,sage_spkg,tides Features to be detected: 4ti2,benzene,bliss,buckygen,conway_

[sage-release] Re: Sage 9.6.rc3 released

2022-05-05 Thread 'tsc...@ucdavis.edu' via sage-release
On Ubuntu with a bunch of optional packages installed, I am getting the following failures due to pynormaliz: Using --optional=bliss,coxeter3,database_knotinfo,debian,dot2tex,e_antic,fricas,gap_packages,kenzo,libsemigroups,lidia,meataxe,normaliz,pip,pynormaliz,sage,sage_spkg,sirocco,tides Featur

[sage-release] Re: Sage 9.6.beta0 released

2022-02-14 Thread 'tsc...@ucdavis.edu' via sage-release
> Instead of modifying the .gitattributes file, you could try adding it to > .git/info/attributes which is local to your repository. > > Thank you. I will try that next time. I am a little hesitant to modify the full repo .gitattributes with this as this might have a number of other unintended

[sage-release] Re: Sage 9.6.beta0 released

2022-02-11 Thread 'tsc...@ucdavis.edu' via sage-release
Something that has come up a few times when doing these upgrades for me has been line endings causing git to think a file has changed which makes merging things cleaning a major PITA. I believe this is caused by #31306, and what I have to do is add this line to .gitattributes *.png binary and

[sage-release] Re: Sage 9.4.rc0 released

2021-07-29 Thread 'tsc...@ucdavis.edu' via sage-release
Thank you Volker for merging many of the tickets. I would appreciate it if we could have #32006 merged for the next release since it contains a number of minor but still very important documentation changes (such as changing information about the default 3d viewers). If we are also cutting anot

Re: [sage-release] Sage 9.4.beta5 released

2021-07-22 Thread 'tsc...@ucdavis.edu' via sage-release
> > > I think we are in a reasonable shape right now, so if anyone is still in > favor of a fast release cycle we could do it now... discuss ;-) > > I'd like to see #30668 merged (as well as all the other users of autoconf > 2.71) > #32079 is a configure bugfix, positively reviewed 20 days ago

[sage-release] Re: Sage 9.4.beta3 released

2021-06-27 Thread 'tsc...@ucdavis.edu' via sage-release
PS - Technically this should be on the 9.4.beta2 release since that is when the ticket #31815 was included. On Monday, June 28, 2021 at 2:12:01 PM UTC+10 tsc...@ucdavis.edu wrote: > I also ran into the same problem as Sébastien on Ubuntu 18.04 LTS and > would like a better solution than just ha

[sage-release] Re: Sage 9.4.beta3 released

2021-06-27 Thread 'tsc...@ucdavis.edu' via sage-release
I also ran into the same problem as Sébastien on Ubuntu 18.04 LTS and would like a better solution than just having to manually configure the Python version. Best, Travis On Thursday, June 24, 2021 at 7:20:20 PM UTC+10 Sébastien Labbé wrote: > Upgrading from 9.4.beta0, my first attempt with r

[sage-release] Re: Sage 9.2.beta1 released

2020-06-27 Thread 'tsc...@ucdavis.edu' via sage-release
This might help for some of the failing internet tests: https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/29787 On Thursday, June 25, 2020 at 6:29:42 AM UTC+10 Sébastien Labbé wrote: > Testing various optional and external packages (on June 15, but I am > reporting only now sorry for the delay), I get > > Using