Re: [sage-devel] Error building sage-4.3.1

Hi Dan, On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 3:26 PM, bump wrote: > I had errors building sage-4.3.1. Note this output from a configuration script (it's from the install log you posted): checking for g77... no checking for xlf... no checking for f77... no checking for frt... no checking for pgf77... no chec

Re: [sage-devel] spam content has got through to the Sage wiki

Hi Robert, On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 6:38 AM, Robert Bradshaw wrote: > The single bad account can be deleted. Now there is another spammer account with the username Robert. The spammer has put spam content on the FAQ [1] and the main wiki [2] pages. [1] http://wiki.sagemath.org/faq [2] http:/

[sage-devel] non-ASCII characters in the Sage library

Should we put # -*- coding: utf-8 -*- at the top of all .py and .pyx(?) files in the Sage library? I think this will allow us to use Unicode literal strings in Sage code, doctests, documentation --- without raising coding errors. Thoughts? Some links: http://wiki.sagemath.org/devel/nonASCII h

[sage-devel] Re: Error building sage-4.3.1

Same issue here. Linux IT 2.6.28-17-generic #58-Ubuntu SMP Tue Dec 1 21:27:25 UTC 2009 x86_64 GNU/Linux gcc version 4.3.3 (Ubuntu 4.3.3-5ubuntu4) Upgrading from 4.3.1.rc0. Igor Tolkov On Jan 20, 8:26 pm, bump wrote: > I had errors building sage-4.3.1. > > The trouble came after this warning: >

[sage-devel] Error building sage-4.3.1

I had errors building sage-4.3.1. The trouble came after this warning: sage-spkg fortran-20100118 2>&1 Warning: Attempted to overwrite SAGE_ROOT environment variable fortran-20100118 Eventually I got: Error installing Fortran: You must install gfortran or set SAGE_FORTRAN (and possibly SAGE_FOR

[sage-devel] Parallel computing in sage post-dsage

Now that dsage has been laid to rest, http://sagemath.org/tour-research.html should be updated as it still advertises dsage to be one of the top 5 sage features for researchers! Perhaps it could be replaced by a few words about @parallel, which is still parallel computing (albeit not distributed)?

[sage-devel] Re: sage-4.3.1 release

metalink is also in place (torrent inside!!) sudo apt-get install aria2 aria2c http://sage.math.washington.edu/sage/src/meta/sage-4.3.1.tar.metalink You can watch mirrors at their work here (top is most recent): http://boxen.math.washington.edu/home/schilly/mm/mirror-log/mirror_manager.html H --

[sage-devel] sage-4.3.1 release

Hi, I've released sage-4.3.1. Get the source here: http://sage.math.washington.edu/sage/src/ Upgrade (in a day or so you can omit the http:// for faster upgrade): sage -upgrade http://sagemath.org/packages/ The release managers were Mike Hansen and Robert Miller. There

Re: [sage-devel] SAGE future add-in recommendation

On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 1:33 PM, Maurizio wrote: > Hi all, > even if in the recent times I've been much less involved with SAGE, I > just wanted to point out two pieces of software that I hope could > become useful in the next future for SAGE. > The first is Bespin, the Javascript code editor by M

[sage-devel] Potential Mac application

It somehow escaped my attention until recently that Fluid (a site specific browser that I use a lot) was open sourced at under the Apache license . I have hacked together a quick demo of what is possible using a site specific browser. Currently there are many p

[sage-devel] Re: echelon_form calculated over the fraction field

William Stein wrote: I argue for keeping the current design when I'm *doing* math. I argue for changing echelon_form to return something over the fraction field when I'm teaching undergraduates. Which is exactly why I think the best solution is to just have a .rref() command, which is what

[sage-devel] sage-4.3.1 final

Hi, This will become sage-4.3.1.final and be the next release: http://sage.math.washington.edu/home/wstein/farm/src/sage-4.3.1.alpha5.tar or whatever is in http://sage.math.washington.edu/home/wstein/farm/src William -- William Stein Associate Professor of Mathematics University of Washing

[sage-devel] SAGE future add-in recommendation

Hi all, even if in the recent times I've been much less involved with SAGE, I just wanted to point out two pieces of software that I hope could become useful in the next future for SAGE. The first is Bespin, the Javascript code editor by Mozilla. It has very recently been released under GPL. Unfort

Re: [sage-devel] spam content has got through to the Sage wiki

> The single bad account can be deleted. Our text captcha system seems to work > well enough--the above doesn't seems to happen very often. It would be nice > if it was on account creation rather than every edit. > +1. (I accidentally typed '+21' at first -- which is probably closer to my real opi

Re: [sage-devel] Re: sage-4.3.1.rc0 released!

On 2010-Jan-17 04:53:11 +, "Dr. David Kirkby" wrote: >Could an argument not be made to the Debian people that the code is >gap singular etc, but patched versions of them. Call them Foo and Bar >if necessary! No seriously, I can understand them not wanting >'standard' things packaged, but if t

Re: [sage-devel] spam content has got through to the Sage wiki

On Jan 20, 2010, at 3:33 AM, Nicolas M. Thiery wrote: On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 06:52:07PM +, David Kirkby wrote: Would it be better to manually create Wiki accounts on demand, rather than let anyone create their own? Create them only when someone when you are confident the person is a seriou

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Not the best week for the Solaris port.

On 2010-Jan-20 15:27:50 +, "Dr. David Kirkby" wrote: >Nobody was suggesting that. I was just puzzled how LDFLAGS could >work. I assumed the flags were passed directly to the linker, but it >appears I am incorrect in assuming that. LDFLAGS would normally be passed to the compiler front end (g

Re: [sage-devel] Re: echelon_form calculated over the fraction field

On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 9:38 AM, John Cremona wrote: > 2010/1/20 Nicolas M. Thiery : >> On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 03:43:00AM -0800, Jason Grout wrote: >>> >I'd rather have it called `echelon_form`, so I vote for leaving >>> >echelon_form as is. Jason's current change has the merit of pleasing >>> >e

Re: [sage-devel] spam content has got through to the Sage wiki

On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 12:56:03PM +, Dr. David Kirkby wrote: > >>One one could ask a non-obvious question rather than "what is the name > >>of the maths software using python". How about "What is the 10th Word > >>in README.txt ? Then, to get the information, someone has to download > >>250 MB

Re: [sage-devel] Re: echelon_form calculated over the fraction field

2010/1/20 Nicolas M. Thiery : > On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 03:43:00AM -0800, Jason Grout wrote: >> >I'd rather have it called `echelon_form`, so I vote for leaving >> >echelon_form as is. Jason's current change has the merit of pleasing >> >everyone.  If there is a strong majority for further changing

Re: [sage-devel] Re: echelon_form calculated over the fraction field

On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 03:43:00AM -0800, Jason Grout wrote: > >I'd rather have it called `echelon_form`, so I vote for leaving > >echelon_form as is. Jason's current change has the merit of pleasing > >everyone. If there is a strong majority for further changing > >`echelon_form`, then please mak

Re: [sage-devel] Re: new GAP spkg?

Hi Dmitrii, On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 5:02 PM, Minh Nguyen wrote: > In the meantime, > I'll rewrite the instructions. The rewritten instructions on patching an spkg are now up on the Development FAQ [1] as a response to the question "How do I patch an spkg?". I have also posted the instructions

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Not the best week for the Solaris port.

Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote: I hope there's not going to be a rule to call 'ld' directly to do linking in SPKGs, that would be a nightmare... Nobody was suggesting that. I was just puzzled how LDFLAGS could work. I assumed the flags were passed directly to the linker, but it appears I am inco

[sage-devel] Re: new GAP spkg?

Hi, That's a pity to loose a write-up just like this... Dmitrii On Jan 20, 2:02 pm, Minh Nguyen wrote: > Hi Dmitrii, > > On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 8:35 AM, Minh Nguyen wrote: > > > > > I have written up some instructions on how to patch an spkg. The > > instructions are provided as an answer to t

Re: [sage-devel] spam content has got through to the Sage wiki

Nicolas M. Thiery wrote: One one could ask a non-obvious question rather than "what is the name of the maths software using python". How about "What is the 10th Word in README.txt ? Then, to get the information, someone has to download 250 MB of source code. I suspect most spammers would not bot

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Not the best week for the Solaris port.

Dr. David Kirkby wrote: Jaap Spies wrote: Dr. David Kirkby wrote: Jaap Spies wrote: Dr David Kirkby wrote: From what I have read of the GNU linker documentation on the linker 'ld' http://sourceware.org/binutils/docs-2.20/ld/Options.html#Options there is no such flag as -m64. So I can't un

[sage-devel] Re: -m64 option in LDFLAGS

Hi Dave, AFAIK, the linker itself (let's call it "ld") is too simplistic to handle more complex scenarios, e.g. the presence of both (and incompatible ...) 32bit and 64bit shared libraries of one and the same "functionality" in the system. OTOH, the "gcc" script (resp. the "g++" script) "knows" t

[sage-devel] Re: echelon_form calculated over the fraction field

Nicolas M. Thiery wrote: Hi! Thanks Jason for working on that! On ..., John Cremona: As a number theorist who is more liklely to want Hermite and Smith normal forms than an actual echelon form (i nthe usual linear algebra over fields sense), I would be quite happy for echelon form of a

Re: [sage-devel] spam content has got through to the Sage wiki

On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 06:52:07PM +, David Kirkby wrote: > Would it be better to manually create Wiki accounts on demand, rather > than let anyone create their own? Create them only when someone when > you are confident the person is a serious Sage user. It has proved useful to us in the past

[sage-devel] Re: make fails on Fedora 12 / 64 bits (kernel 2.6.31.5-127.fc12.x86_64)

I will respond to myself since I solved this bug : I updated my Fedora 12 as proposed by the system. I guess that gcc and others were updated Works fine now On 14 jan, 14:33, Nicolas wrote: > Dear developers, > > I tried to build sage by simply typingmakeon the following machine : > > Intel Xe

Re: [sage-devel] Re: echelon_form calculated over the fraction field

Hi! Thanks Jason for working on that! On ..., John Cremona: > >As a number theorist who is more liklely to want Hermite and Smith > >normal forms than an actual echelon form (i nthe usual linear algebra > >over fields sense), I would be quite happy for echelon form of a > >matrix over ZZ

Re: [sage-devel] TOO LONG!

Hi Robert! On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 02:21:55PM +1100, Alex Ghitza wrote: > On Tue, 19 Jan 2010 13:54:57 -0800, Robert Miller wrote: > > > > And here are the eight longest -long doctests: > > > > devel/sage-main/sage/rings/arith.py > > 506.284008026 > > Where was this run? I find it ver

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Not the best week for the Solaris port.

Jaap Spies wrote: Dr. David Kirkby wrote: Jaap Spies wrote: Dr David Kirkby wrote: From what I have read of the GNU linker documentation on the linker 'ld' http://sourceware.org/binutils/docs-2.20/ld/Options.html#Options there is no such flag as -m64. So I can't understand how it works. (T

[sage-devel] Re: echelon_form calculated over the fraction field

John Cremona wrote: As a number teorist who is more liklely to want Hermite and Smith normal forms than an actual echelon form (i nthe usual linear algebra over fields sense), I would be quite happy for echelon form of a matrix over ZZ to promote to QQ, and have differently names functions for He

[sage-devel] Re: Not the best week for the Solaris port.

Dr. David Kirkby wrote: Jaap Spies wrote: Dr David Kirkby wrote: From what I have read of the GNU linker documentation on the linker 'ld' http://sourceware.org/binutils/docs-2.20/ld/Options.html#Options there is no such flag as -m64. So I can't understand how it works. (There is an opton -6

Re: [sage-devel] Re: echelon_form calculated over the fraction field

As a number teorist who is more liklely to want Hermite and Smith normal forms than an actual echelon form (i nthe usual linear algebra over fields sense), I would be quite happy for echelon form of a matrix over ZZ to promote to QQ, and have differently names functions for Hermite and Smith (perha