On Jan 17, 6:57 pm, William Stein <wst...@gmail.com> wrote:
<SNIP>
> > And lrs can be build as a library and probably will so be integrated
> > in Sage in the future. Since there are issues with LLP64 this is not a
> > fun thing to debug, i.e. anything that can go wrong will lead to a
> > segfault which isn't fun to debug because it happens *in* Python or
> > the Sage library, and I wouldn't want to do it via Sage. How things
> > like this can get screwed up badly (and this is not even a LLP64
> > issue) is Symmetrica where we see segfaults on Solaris in 32 bit mode
> > when running some examples. There is a test suite of about 400
> > examples (at least according to the documentation) and after numerous
> > attempts to contact the author we still don't have the files. The
> > author does not reply to emails or bug reports and because of that as
> > well as the truly horribly nature of the code (worst abuse of the
> > preprocessor I have *ever* seen) I have lobbied to get the code thrown
> > it.
>
> I think you mean "thrown out". I am sympathetic.
Yep, I have complained about this off list for over one year and on
list for more than six months. Note that there has been a trac ticket
about this issue for quite a while.
<SNIP>
> > Having all said the above I am more than happy to help out fixing
> > those issues in lrs, but my approval will only happen when I see that
> > upstream is willing to pitch in. Obviously you might "win" this vote,
> > but even then I will appeal to the JSage board and argue that the code
> > quality of lrs is not up to the standard we want. And I am pretty sure
> > the board members will listen to my arguments.
>
> I don't think there should even be a vote until you sign off on the
> platform support. Getting new packages into sage involves two
> things: (1) a list of minimum requirements about code quality and
> portability, and (2) sufficient interest and support by the community.
>
> IMHO, lrs is in stage (1) right now. Voting should be mainly for stage (2).
Thanks and good that you agree. Having said all of the above let me
stress again that I highly value how Marshall has been contributing to
Sage, i.e. all the future work on porting/reimplementing ideas and
code from phcpack will hopefully rock, but I would really like to see
a sign of upstream in form of an email before I spend more than an
hour or two on the code and start fixing issues like the build system.
I have 150+ open tickets against me in trac and I am not going to
"waste" my time on this unless there is a chance this will work.
And given the number of computer geeks hanging around a math
department I am somewhat surprised that code like lrs isn't much
cleaner from the get go, especially given the rather central nature of
it in its field one would assume that sooner or later someone with
build system and portability experience would have fixed the code.
This obviously leads to the joke about the professor being asked what
his favorite programming language is and the answer being "PhD" :)
> William
Cheers,
Michael
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
sage-devel-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel
URLs: http://www.sagemath.org
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
