Re: [sage-release] Sage 10.2.beta6 released

Yes, I think you are right. I am probably guilty for the fact it is not included in this release. I should have hurried up. On 9/10/23 17:02, Matthias Köppe wrote: The failure involving setuptools_scm is likely fixed by https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36400, which is waiting for review.

Re: [sage-release] Sage 10.0 released

sage-on-gentoo 10.0 is out sans bliss and meataxe options for now. On Monday, May 22, 2023 at 8:47:33 AM UTC+12 François Bissey wrote: > > > On 22/05/23 06:14, Matthias Köppe wrote: > > On Sunday, May 21, 2023 at 3:55:18 AM UTC-7 François Bissey wrote: > > > > I am p

Re: [sage-release] Sage 10.0 released

On 22/05/23 06:14, Matthias Köppe wrote: On Sunday, May 21, 2023 at 3:55:18 AM UTC-7 François Bissey wrote: I am preparing the sage-on-gentoo release. I just noticed the file sage/graphs/bliss.pyx is missing from the pypi tarball of sagemath-standard. I have a feeling I

Re: [sage-release] Sage 10.0 released

I am preparing the sage-on-gentoo release. I just noticed the file sage/graphs/bliss.pyx is missing from the pypi tarball of sagemath-standard. I have a feeling I will find it in the sage-bliss package. However I did not notice that the splitting of sage-bliss was live in the 10.0rc*. Is this a

Re: [sage-release] Sage 9.8 released

st.yml" nor the "ci-..." workflows have run on the push to the 9.8 tag on sagemath/sage. I'll investigate. I've also created the GitHub release 9.8 manually. (The tag was created, the release was not) On Saturday, February 11, 2023 at

Re: [sage-release] Sage 9.8 released

When will we have packages up on pypi? I now rely on these for stable release in sage-on-gentoo. François On 12/02/23 02:47, Volker Braun wrote: The "master" git branch has been updated to Sage-9.8. As always, you can get the latest beta version from the "develop" git branch. Alternatively,

Re: [sage-release] Re: Sage 9.8.rc0 released

There are at least two different issues that breaks the build of the doc for you: [sagemath_doc_html-none] pkg_resources.DistributionNotFound: The 'fpylll<=0.5.9,>=0.5.9' distribution was not found and is required by sagemath-standard [sagemath_doc_html-none] Warning: Could not import

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

It is indeed a known issue with nauty on debian/ubuntu. That's the first time someone mentioned it in a while but it is definitely broken. On 23/01/23 21:28, Antonio Rojas wrote: El lunes, 23 de enero de 2023 a las 9:07:32 UTC+1, tsc...@ucdavis.edu escribió: I am getting stuck at giac, even

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

git checkout tags/9.7.rc0 If I am not mistaken. On 11/09/22 22:50, Emmanuel Charpentier wrote: Can it be done by telling |git|(how ?) to use 9.7.rc0 ? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-release" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop

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

ar as I know, a system's maxima can't (yet) be used by Sage... > > Le dimanche 11 septembre 2022 à 12:17:06 UTC+2, François Bissey a écrit : > > That kind of error means the maxima.fas library has not been built or

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

12:17:06 UTC+2, François Bissey a écrit : That kind of error means the maxima.fas library has not been built or installed or possibly not installed in the right place. Are you using the system maxima or was sage's maxima build? François On 11/09/22 22:02, Emmanuel Charpentier

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

That kind of error means the maxima.fas library has not been built or installed or possibly not installed in the right place. Are you using the system maxima or was sage's maxima build? François On 11/09/22 22:02, Emmanuel Charpentier wrote: On Debian testing running on core i7 + 16 GB RAM,

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

Fix at https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/34037 is ready for review. > On 21/06/2022, at 13:13, François Bissey wrote: > > The test was introduced in https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/25626 and you can > see my comment at the end. We need to follow up to make sure the result

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

The test was introduced in https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/25626 and you can see my comment at the end. We need to follow up to make sure the result is tested in a more version independent form. > On 21/06/2022, at 13:08, François Bissey wrote: > > I meant to follow up on that. The

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

I meant to follow up on that. The test has been added in a recent ticket but the result is different between giac 1.7 and giac 1.9. Both results are equivalent but the 1.7 is more compact (simplified?). The failure means you have giac 1.9 installed. > On 21/06/2022, at 13:05,

Re: [sage-release] Sage 9.6 released

How long until we have stuff on pypi? That’s when I will pick up the work in sage-on-gentoo in the current framework. Thanks for the release! > On 16/05/2022, at 10:33, Matthias Köppe wrote: > > Yay! Thanks a lot, Volker. > > On Sunday, May 15, 2022 at 3:27:40 PM UTC-7 Volker Braun wrote: >

Re: [sage-release] Sage 9.6 released

I finally pushed 9.6 to master in sage-on-gentoo. An unusually long time between actual release and availability for me. Early testing seems to show we suffer from https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/33304 in a repeatable manner in 9.6 in Gentoo. May be we’ll be able to tackle it. > On

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

That is https://github.com/cschwan/sage-on-gentoo/issues/682 > On 2/05/2022, at 07:04, Matthias Köppe wrote: > > gentoo: Clean > - except for (https://github.com/sagemath/sage/runs/6236170009): > src/sage/interfaces/giac.py > It means something went wrong when giac was updated on the system

Re: [sage-release] Sage 9.6.rc2 released

022 at 12:43:34 PM UTC-7 François Bissey wrote: > Actually, that means libcliquer is not installed as a dependency of nauty. > Those symbols are supposed to be from libcliquer. > > > On 28/04/2022, at 03:43, Dima Pasechnik wrote: > > > > > > > > On Wed,

Re: [sage-release] Sage 9.6.rc2 released

Actually, that means libcliquer is not installed as a dependency of nauty. Those symbols are supposed to be from libcliquer. > On 28/04/2022, at 03:43, Dima Pasechnik wrote: > > > > On Wed, 27 Apr 2022, 16:26 David Joyner, wrote: > On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 10:44 AM Dima Pasechnik wrote: > >

Re: [sage-release] Sage 9.5 released

/01/2022, at 11:51, François Bissey wrote: > > That page is still listing 9.4 and not all mirrors have 9.5 yet. aarnet which > would be my closest mirror is not yet updated at the time of writing. > I guess I’ll wait a few hours. > >> On 31/01/2022, at 11:48, Thierry wr

Re: [sage-release] Sage 9.5.rc0 released

That one is because a recent gain is used see https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/31563 > On 11/01/2022, at 06:11, Emmanuel Charpentier > wrote: > > charpent@zen-book-flip:/usr/local/sage-9$ sage -t --long --warn-long 230.6 > --random-seed=55945959185617375554737887082041268498 >

Re: [sage-release] Sage 9.5.rc0 released

This is now https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/33141 - would be nice to get fix for 9.5 but it is not exactly critical :) > On 10/01/2022, at 16:52, François Bissey wrote: > > It seems that after Trac #32759 I now doctest sage_setup and sage_docbuild in > sage-on-gentoo. It was e

Re: [sage-release] Sage 9.5.rc0 released

It seems that after Trac #32759 I now doctest sage_setup and sage_docbuild in sage-on-gentoo. It was either broken or suppressed voluntarily on my part before. But now those files are doctested here and testing on distro revealed a few things that could be improved. $ sage -t --long

Re: [sage-release] Sage 9.5.beta9 released

The failures in min_max.py are caused by recent giac. See https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/31563. > On 25/12/2021, at 09:40, Emmanuel Charpentier > wrote: > > FWIW, on Debian testing running on core i7 + 16 GB RAM, ptestlong gives only > two (permanent) failures, both new IIRC : > >

Re: [sage-release] Sage 9.5.beta4 released

I actually observed the second one in sage-on-gentoo but it didn’t persist after re-running twice the doctest. I still have the failure in my logs but cannot reproduce it anymore. François > On 21/10/2021, at 19:44, Vincent Delecroix <20100.delecr...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I got two doctest

Re: [sage-release] Sage 9.4.beta1 released

This is now https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/31921 > On 7/06/2021, at 13:33, François Bissey wrote: > > Checking how the feature works I think there was a mistake in the addition to > sage/features/databases.py > for knotinfo. It checks for a sage python module presence, wh

Re: [sage-release] Sage 9.4.beta1 released

. > On 7/06/2021, at 13:18, François Bissey wrote: > > I have trouble building the documentation in sage-on-gentoo because of #30352 > which doesn’t seem to be > implementing features properly. That error wouldn’t happen on vanilla sage > because the build is not done > in a

Re: [sage-release] Sage 9.4.beta1 released

I have trouble building the documentation in sage-on-gentoo because of #30352 which doesn’t seem to be implementing features properly. That error wouldn’t happen on vanilla sage because the build is not done in a sandbox and the build system wouldn’t try to write a system location. * python3_9:

Re: [sage-release] Sage 9.3.rc5 released

> On 2/05/2021, at 06:57, Dima Pasechnik wrote: > > I'd rather try gcc 11 instead. If you want. We already have an issue in compiling fplll https://github.com/fplll/fplll/issues/462 and sage itself doesn’t compile because of some issue in lcalc as far as I can see.

Re: [sage-release] Sage 9.3.beta8 released

Exactly that, thanks for adding me. I can reliably reproduce it. > On 9/03/2021, at 09:01, Matthias Köppe wrote: > > See https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/30945 > > On Monday, March 8, 2021 at 11:52:46 AM UTC-8 François Bissey wrote: > I have been having a segfault in tha

Re: [sage-release] Sage 9.3.beta8 released

I have been having a segfault in that file for a while between 9.3.beta7 and 9.3.beta8 in sage-on-gentoo when running parallel testing. However the tests run all fine on that file when doing an individual run. There probably can be some kind of race condition when running in parallel. > On

Re: [sage-release] Sage 9.3.beta3 released

It looks like you are missing sqlite3, not on the system or in sage. You probably have the library but not the executable. > On 7/12/2020, at 9:50 PM, Clemens Heuberger wrote: > > > I get (Linux Mint 19.3 Tricia): > > $ LANG=C ./sage -t --long --random-seed=0 src/sage/tests/cmdline.py >

Re: [sage-release] Sage 9.2.beta14 released

This is https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/30675 as I mentioned to several people I am surprised the fact this was needed was not picked up by the bots. Which version of gcc are you using. > On 1/10/2020, at 10:13 PM, Emmanuel Charpentier > wrote: > > Upgrading from 9.2.beta13 failed : I had

Re: [sage-release] Sage 9.2.beta14 released

This has been around for ages. In fact for as long as nauty has been in sage. I remember spotting it for the first time in dmesg several years ago. Because it is mostly silent very little effort has put into fixing that so far, at least that I know of. > On 1/10/2020, at 9:20 PM, Eric Gourgoulhon

Re: [sage-release] Sage 9.2.beta6 released

The important bits from that last log [198/517] creating build/temp.macosx-10.14-x86_64-3.7/build/cythonized/sage/libs/arb clang -Wno-unused-result -Wsign-compare -Wunreachable-code -fno-common -dynamic -DNDEBUG -g -fwrapv -O3 -Wall -isysroot

Re: [sage-release] Sage 9.1.beta1 released

> On 23/01/2020, at 9:47 PM, Timo Kaufmann wrote: > > Am Mittwoch, 22. Januar 2020 19:04:06 UTC+1 schrieb Steven Trogdon: > Your build may be picking up on the wrong version of pygments. Vanilla Sage > uses pygments-2.3.1.p0. > > ./sage -f pygments > > may fix the issue. On my

Re: [sage-release] Sage 9.0.beta8 released

Yes. sagenb is no a real optional package even with python2. We overlooked the test suite when we made some test depending on it just “# py2”. That was in https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/28805. We probably really should have introduced `# sagenb` in insight. But honestly I don’t care that much

Re: [sage-release] Sage 8.9.beta9 released

https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/28271 broke the building of the pdf doc. See https://github.com/cschwan/sage-on-gentoo/issues/549 I’ll have a follow up at some point in the next 24hours. The ticket introduced a unicode “minus” sign at

Re: [sage-release] Re: Sage 8.9.beta5 released

Thanks, between that and the source code I know understand what is happening. The configure script never checked that the flags are supported by the compiler. Instead it runs some assembly code to identify the cpu ID and infer the capabilities from that information. Actual code using the

Re: [sage-release] Re: Sage 8.9.beta5 released

I meant the config.log of fflas-ffpack not sage’s one. > On 6/08/2019, at 5:31 PM, Markus Wageringel > wrote: > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-release" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an

Re: [sage-release] Re: Sage 8.9.beta5 released

Yes I would like to see it. I have looked at what fflas-ffpack does to detect the stuff but I want a practical output for that case. > On 6/08/2019, at 10:26 AM, Markus Wageringel > wrote: > > It would have been nice to have the config log from when you had the failure. > > Would you still

Re: [sage-release] Re: Sage 8.9.beta5 released

After inspection of configure they are all brand new options I didn’t know anything about. That would have been —disable-{avx512f,avx512dq,avx512vl}. I am still shocked it enabled them without your compiler supporting it. The logic must be flawed. In any case we need to add those to the list of

Re: [sage-release] Re: Sage 8.9.beta5 released

But fflas-ffpack detection routines pick it up when they shouldn’t. Technically I see that as an upstream inbox team problem since they share their detection routines over the entire givaro/fflas-ffpack/linbox stack. You may want to try export FFLAS_FFPACK_CONFIGURE=“—disable-fma

Re: [sage-release] Sage 8..8 released

That’s because you changed branch. There is no difference between the develop branch at 8.8.rc3 and master at 8.8. But when you switch branch to master you get all the changes between master at 8.7 and master at 8.8. Basically to get master at 8.8 you merge develop at 8.8.rc3 into master at 8.7.

Re: [sage-release] Re: Sage 8.8.rc3 released

Print no. But I have users of sage-on-gentoo who have told me that they find it handy and consult it from their phone and stuff. > On 27/06/2019, at 5:03 AM, Volker Braun wrote: > > IMHO the main point of the pdf docs is to check that the LaTeX math is valid, > nobody is going to download and

Re: [sage-release] Re: Sage 8.8.rc3 released

Unless we are ready to ship 8.8 with broken pdf docs I created https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/28059 and marked it as a blocker. Feel free to downgrade the severity if you think it is appropriate. François > On 24/06/2019, at 11:52 PM, Eric Gourgoulhon wrote: > > On Ubuntu 18.04 running on

Re: [sage-release] Re: Sage 8.8.rc2 released

You shouldn't need two copies. It is more like a dependency issue. sage/matrix/matrix_rational_dense.so (and may be other) should be re-built during the incremental build but isn’t/aren't. Touching the relevant .pyx file and using `./sage -b` should fix it. > On 20/06/2019, at 12:48 PM, Paul

Re: [sage-release] Sage 8.8.rc0 released

As I suspect in the ticket (in which I also left a comment) the fact that the version 0.3.5 instead of 0.3.6 is mentioned in the trace make me think this is an incremental build problem. Something that should have been rebuilt didn’t and that may be because of the way you performed the incremental

Re: [sage-release] Re: Sage 8.8.beta6 released

if at all > possible (e.g. update the GAP interfaces to add an option to disable use of > ~/.gap` when running the tests, for example) > > On Sat, May 25, 2019, 03:22 François Bissey wrote: > We’ll want some kind of follow up. The test will fail if you have something > in

Re: [sage-release] Sage 8.8.beta6 released

This is now https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/27878 > On 27/05/2019, at 4:57 PM, François Bissey wrote: > > I have actual data in one of them. > A little bit of testing show replacing > gap_cmd=“gap -r” > by > gap_cmd=“gap” > in interface/gap.py has no side effects

Re: [sage-release] Re: Sage 8.8.beta6 released

mmy > > And the contents of dummy, in both folders, is: > > This file is only for causing that the directory is created by `zoo'. > > On Sunday, May 26, 2019 at 5:59:52 PM UTC-5, François Bissey wrote: > Actually this is a little bit more complicated than what I thought. This

Re: [sage-release] Re: Sage 8.8.beta6 released

during doctesting. So we really need to improve on this situation. 1) does gap need to be run with "-r" 2) if it does what do we do about the fact that ~/.gap is skipped when using the pexpect interface. Francois On Saturday, May 25, 2019 at 1:21:58 PM UTC+12, François Bissey wrote:

Re: [sage-release] Re: Sage 8.8.beta6 released

gt; Found this also first on s-o-g. So should ~/.gap be empty or is a follow-up > to https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/27681 necessary? > On Friday, May 24, 2019 at 7:04:53 PM UTC-5, François Bissey wrote: > You have something in ~/.gap. See > https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/27681#com

Re: [sage-release] Re: Sage 8.8.beta6 released

You have something in ~/.gap. See https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/27681#comment:30 > On 25/05/2019, at 12:02 PM, Steven Trogdon wrote: > > As far as I know this failure started with this beta. > > sage -t --long src/sage/tests/gap_packages.py >

Re: [sage-release] Sage 8.5 released

Volker, I see you tagged 8.5 in the develop branch on github but the master is not updated. > On 23/12/2018, at 13:19, Volker Braun wrote: > > The "master" git branch has been updated to Sage-8.5. As always, you can get > the latest beta version from the "develop" git branch. Alternatively,

Re: [sage-release] Re: Sage 8.5.beta5 released

This is definitely it. It introduced the doctests in question. I guess I should have provided that extra info. > On 28/11/2018, at 22:11, fchapot...@gmail.com wrote: > > Could be caused by https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/26702 > > Le mercredi 28 novembre 2018 09:49:53 UTC+1,

Re: [sage-release] Re: Sage 8.5.beta5 released

That’s interesting. I thought the failures in sage/databases/sql_db.py in sage-on-gentoo were due to the use of a newer version of sqlite. But if you see it too that must be something more subtle. François > On 28/11/2018, at 21:46, Sébastien Labbé wrote: > > On Ubuntu 16.04, the command >

Re: [sage-release] Re: Sage 8.5.beta0 released

e 2018). > > If I comment out \usepackage{babel} and some lines related to that package, > it builds, so it appears to be a conflict with the babel package. My version > is "2018/10/16 3.26". I've opened https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/26558 for > this. > > John

Re: [sage-release] Re: Sage 8.5.beta0 released

I cannot see that. Which file is affected? François > On 26/10/2018, at 09:34, John H Palmieri wrote: > > > > On Thursday, October 25, 2018 at 1:30:30 PM UTC-7, John H Palmieri wrote: > PDF docs fail to build for me: > > [docpdf] LaTeX Warning: Command \LaTeX invalid in math mode on input

Re: [sage-release] Sage 8.4.beta4 released

For info he did a couple of hours after my answer to you. So it has been available for about 12 hours now. > On 8/09/2018, at 07:17, 'Justin C. Walker' via sage-release > wrote: > > >> On Sep 6, 2018, at 22:24 , François Bissey wrote: >> >> No you didn’t. Volk

Re: [sage-release] Sage 8.4.beta4 released

No you didn’t. Volker hasn’t pushed on github yet. I am waiting myself to update the sage-on-gentoo ebuild. François > On 7/09/2018, at 17:12, 'Justin C. Walker' via sage-release > wrote: > > >> On Sep 6, 2018, at 16:24 , Volker Braun wrote: >> >> As always, you can get the latest beta

Re: [sage-release] Sage 8.3.beta2 released

If the optional package bliss is installed the following doctests fail: sage -t --long --warn-long 83.4 src/sage/geometry/polyhedron/base.py # 4 doctests failed sage -t --long --warn-long 83.4 src/sage/geometry/lattice_polytope.py # 1 doctest failed sage -t --long --warn-long 83.4

Re: [sage-release] Re: Sage 8.3.beta0 released

> wrote: > > Isn't Trac#25323 good enough ? > > -- > Emmanuel Charpentier > > Le jeudi 10 mai 2018 10:22:06 UTC+2, François Bissey a écrit : > It is probably an oversight or a corner case in > https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/20382 > Do open a ticket for that.

Re: [sage-release] Re: Sage 8.3.beta0 released

It is probably an oversight or a corner case in https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/20382 Do open a ticket for that. François > On 10/05/2018, at 20:15, Emmanuel Charpentier > wrote: > > On Debian testing running on cote i7 + 16 GB RAM, make ptestlong gives me >

Re: [sage-release] Re: Sage 8.2.rc1 released

Would https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/25026 look helpful? sun.audio missing? > On 1/04/2018, at 22:40, Emmanuel Charpentier > wrote: > > On Debian testing running on Core i7 + 16 GB RAM, builds and passes ptestlong > without errors whatsoever. > > However, I

Re: [sage-release] Re: Sage 8.2.beta8 released

> On 15/03/2018, at 04:34, Sébastien Labbé wrote: > > On Ubuntu 16.04, my first attempt at running make finishes with a problem > with giac (undefined reference to `png_set_longjmp_fn') > > The log finishes with: > > ... > [giac-1.4.9.45.p2] libtool: link: g++ -g -O2

Re: [sage-release] Sage 8.2.beta6 released

> On 19/02/2018, at 19:36, Justin C. Walker wrote: > >> >> On Feb 18, 2018, at 12:09 , Volker Braun wrote: >> >> As always, you can get the latest beta version from the "develop" git >> branch. Alternatively, the self-contained source tarball is at

Re: [sage-release] Sage 8.2.beta5 released

> On 15/02/2018, at 12:21, Justin C. Walker <jus...@mac.com> wrote: > > >> On Feb 12, 2018, at 14:45 , François Bissey <frp.bis...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Can you test the branch at https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/24721 >> and s

Re: [sage-release] Sage 8.2.beta5 released

> On 13/02/2018, at 12:42, Justin C. Walker <jus...@mac.com> wrote: > > >> On Feb 12, 2018, at 14:45, François Bissey <frp.bis...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Can you test the branch at https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/24721 >> and see if that helps wit

Re: [sage-release] Sage 8.2.beta5 released

Can you test the branch at https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/24721 and see if that helps with this particular machine. François > On 10/02/2018, at 19:40, Justin C. Walker <jus...@mac.com> wrote: > > >> On Feb 9, 2018, at 19:32 , François Bissey <frp.bis...@gmail.com&

Re: [sage-release] Re: Sage 8.2.beta5 released

ault-when-using-clang > > On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 9:16 AM François Bissey <frp.bis...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On 12/02/2018, at 20:06, Ralf Stephan <gtrw...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Finally here is the recommended set of flags for clang on Linux: >

Re: [sage-release] Re: Sage 8.2.beta5 released

> On 12/02/2018, at 20:06, Ralf Stephan wrote: > > Finally here is the recommended set of flags for clang on Linux: > > export CC="clang" > export CXX="clang++" > export CLANG_DEFAULT_CXX_STDLIB="libc++" > Where did you find about this variable? I’d like to know if there

Re: [sage-release] Sage 8.2.beta5 released

> On 11/02/2018, at 19:57, François Bissey <frp.bis...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> On 10/02/2018, at 12:07, Justin C. Walker <jus...@mac.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> On Feb 9, 2018, at 00:25 , Volker Braun <vbraun.n...@gmail.com> wrote:

Re: [sage-release] Sage 8.2.beta5 released

> On 10/02/2018, at 12:07, Justin C. Walker wrote: > >> >> On Feb 9, 2018, at 00:25 , Volker Braun wrote: >> >> As always, you can get the latest beta version from the "develop" git >> branch. Alternatively, the self-contained source tarball is at >>

Re: [sage-release] Re: Sage 8.2.beta5 released

> On 11/02/2018, at 10:36, Simon King wrote: > >> >> Ubuntu is probably the most used distro if someone can wipe up some >> instructions >> on what to install that would help greatly. > > Well, so far I was installing clang, clang-dev and libc++abi-dev. The > latter

Re: [sage-release] Re: Sage 8.2.beta5 released

I am sorry to have cause everyone who wanted to try it on linux so much grief. To summarise * you need to build from scratch * clang using libstdc++ from gcc appears to have problems - at the moment I don’t know if it is just because the gcc in question is too old or that’s a no go. * if you

Re: [sage-release] Re: Sage 8.2.beta5 released

> On 11/02/2018, at 00:02, Simon King wrote: > >> s is what I did now. It is still in the process of building. > > While it was building, I noticed lines such as > [python_openid-2.2.5.p0] Found candidate GCC installation: > /usr/bin/../lib/gcc/i686-linux-gnu/5.4.0

Re: [sage-release] Re: Sage 8.2.beta5 released

> On 10/02/2018, at 23:49, Simon King <simon.k...@uni-jena.de> wrote: > > Hi François, > > On 2018-02-10, François Bissey <frp.bis...@gmail.com> wrote: >> I’d recommend to work on a separate clone. It is what I have done >> on my Gentoo linux box. &

Re: [sage-release] Re: Sage 8.2.beta5 released

> On 10/02/2018, at 22:02, Simon King <simon.k...@uni-jena.de> wrote: > > On 2018-02-10, François Bissey <frp.bis...@gmail.com> wrote: >> I’d recommend to work on a separate clone. It is what I have done >> on my Gentoo linux box. I don’t know the state of cl

Re: [sage-release] Re: Sage 8.2.beta5 released

> On 10/02/2018, at 21:25, Simon King wrote: > > Here are reports that with clang things won't work in different ways > (e.g., IIUC, segfaults in linbox on openSuse). Does that mean clang is > buggy resp. not mature enough, or does that mean clang uncovers real > bugs

Re: [sage-release] Sage 8.2.beta5 released

> On 10/02/2018, at 19:40, Justin C. Walker wrote: > > Thanks for this. I have > > Apple LLVM version 7.0.2 (clang-700.1.81) > Target: x86_64-apple-darwin15.6.0 > Thread model: posix > > Is there a fairly straight-forward way to get Apple’s clang at what you're > calling

Re: [sage-release] Sage 8.2.beta5 released

> On 10/02/2018, at 18:06, kcrisman <kcris...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Friday, February 9, 2018 at 10:32:49 PM UTC-5, François Bissey wrote: > We didn’t test clang 3.7 which is what your machine is using at OS X 10.11. > > Would that be the same as this one? I also

Re: [sage-release] Sage 8.2.beta5 released

We didn’t test clang 3.7 which is what your machine is using at OS X 10.11. But I recognised the error as one I got in the same place when I tried a build with icc on linux. Yes that’s a fun bit I haven’t mentioned yet. You can technically try any compiler that pretends to be gcc - but only clang

Re: [sage-release] Re: Sage 8.2.beta5 released

OK, that’s a slightly different issue. I didn’t think that would be a problem but this package shouldn’t be needed with python3.2+ since it is a backport of functionality for older python. So it would be best not to install it with python3. > On 10/02/2018, at 05:55, fchapot...@gmail.com wrote:

Re: [sage-release] Re: Sage 8.2.beta5 released

Actually if you have the autotools packages installed (from the system or sage) can you try autoreconf -i then re-run configure and see if that fix it. > On 10/02/2018, at 00:02, François Bissey <frp.bis...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Which version of ubuntu? We have seen an instance

Re: [sage-release] Re: Sage 8.2.beta5 released

Which version of ubuntu? We have seen an instance of that problem during review but we thought it was fixed. OK, there was something nagging me but it looked fixed on the patchbot. > On 9/02/2018, at 23:56, fchapot...@gmail.com wrote: > > An incremental build from previous beta fails on

Re: [sage-release] Sage 8.2.beta5 released

> On 9/02/2018, at 23:03, Ralf Stephan wrote: > > So how to use clang on Linux? CC=clang CXX=clang++ make Adjust to the peculiarity of your install in terms of PATH and compiler names. François -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups

Re: [sage-release] Sage 8.2.beta5 released

Note that from this release a fresh build on OS X will use clang. Building gcc and using it can be triggered with SAGE_INSTALL_GCC=yes as usual. Incremental upgrade will continue to use the previously configured compiler. Feedback on optional packages that are broken by the move appreciated.

Re: [sage-release] Sage 8.2.beta4 released

c-1.4.9.45] > /home/embray/src/sagemath/sage/local/var/tmp/sage/build/giac-1.4.9.45/src/src/.libs/libgiac.so: > undefined reference to `png_set_longjmp_fn' > [giac-1.4.9.45] collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status > > > So this has rendered this beta unbuildable for me. &

Re: [sage-release] Sage 8.2.beta4 released

Interesting question and I don’t know. I only know that the failure comes from mpfr_assert_fail in mpfr-3 code as indicated by your log. What else, there was a change of soname which means that there are incompatibilities between mpfr-3 and mpfr-4 and that is probably at play here. None of the

Re: [sage-release] Sage 8.2.beta4 released

> > On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 8:09 AM François Bissey <frp.bis...@gmail.com> wrote: > I was going to warn sage-on-gentoo users on this interesting fact that I > experienced > on the experimental branch where I track stuff that Volker merges. > It is probably an issue in giac,

Re: [sage-release] Sage 8.2.beta4 released

I was going to warn sage-on-gentoo users on this interesting fact that I experienced on the experimental branch where I track stuff that Volker merges. It is probably an issue in giac, but at the end of the day gcc needs to be rebuilt after mpfr/mpc. I didn’t think about the problem of what

Re: [sage-release] Sage 8.2.beta2 released

'/usr/bin:/bin:/usr/sbin:/sbin:/Library/TeX/texbin' > > so I'm surprised anything from /usr/local gets picked up. > > Samuel > > 2018-01-09 12:47 GMT-06:00 François Bissey <frp.bis...@gmail.com>: > It’s picking up an installation of webs in /usr/local > gcc -fno-str

Re: [sage-release] Sage 8.2.beta2 released

It’s picking up an installation of webs in /usr/local gcc -fno-strict-aliasing -g -O2 -DNDEBUG -g -fwrapv -O3 -Wall -Wno-unused -DHAVE_WEBPMUX -I/opt/s/sage-8.2.beta2/local/include/freetype2 -I/opt/s/sage-8.2.beta2/local/var/tmp/sage/build/pillow-3.3.0/src/libImaging

Re: [sage-release] Sage 8.2.beta0 released

t;dimp...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, December 13, 2017 at 11:28:29 PM UTC, François Bissey wrote: > Can we have an updated develop branch on github? > > in case, you can pull from here: https://github.com/dimpase/sagetrac-mirror > > > François >

Re: [sage-release] Sage 8.2.beta0 released

Can we have an updated develop branch on github? François > On 14/12/2017, at 12:03, Volker Braun wrote: > > As always, you can get the latest beta version from the "develop" git branch. > Alternatively, the self-contained source tarball is at >

Re: [sage-release] Sage 8.1.rc1 released

scipy -> script according to my autocorrect. > On 19/11/2017, at 08:32, François Bissey <frp.bis...@gmail.com> wrote: > > And it is already a dependency. A build order one, so doc is not > rebuilt when script changes. Do you need the doc rebuilt on script changes

Re: [sage-release] Sage 8.1.rc1 released

And it is already a dependency. A build order one, so doc is not rebuilt when script changes. Do you need the doc rebuilt on script changes? Or considering the conversation before you meant sympy? François > On 19/11/2017, at 08:30, François Bissey <frp.bis...@gmail.com> wrote: >

Re: [sage-release] Re: Sage 8.1.rc0 released

Define strange behaviours? > On 16/11/2017, at 18:52, Kwankyu Lee wrote: > > Hi, > > Does this release support Xcode 9.1 on mac? > > I built this release with Xcode 9.1, and the Sage built shows strange > behaviors. Is this because of Xcode 9.1? -- You received this

  1   2   >