On 7 bře, 01:05, William Stein wrote:
>
> It's not clear if it is PITA or not. As far as I can tell, nobody
> lifted a finger to work on the Debian/Ubuntu packaging of Sage during
> the last 6 months (or more). Nobody is working on it.
>
Just some ideas. I wonder if the following is possible
R
On Mar 6, 2010, at 9:22 PM, William Stein wrote:
On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 7:40 PM, Robert Bradshaw
wrote:
On Mar 6, 2010, at 6:57 PM, Franco Saliola wrote:
I recently stumbled over a bug in the pexpect module shipped with
Sage. It turns out that specifying the full path to a command
doesn't
On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 7:40 PM, Robert Bradshaw
wrote:
> On Mar 6, 2010, at 6:57 PM, Franco Saliola wrote:
>
>> I recently stumbled over a bug in the pexpect module shipped with
>> Sage. It turns out that specifying the full path to a command doesn't
>> work; you get an UnboundLocalError exception
On Mar 6, 7:58 pm, Robert Bradshaw
wrote:
> On Mar 6, 2010, at 4:06 PM, Dr. David Kirkby wrote:
[snip]
> A 30-second skim through the list gives me the impression that there
> are probably 3 or 4 issues total that are causing all of these
> failures. Of course I could be wrong, and who knows
On Mar 6, 2010, at 3:51 PM, memilanuk wrote:
Hello,
Another vote here for getting an old and/or broken version *out* of
Debian unstable/experimental. Seems kind of ridiculous to have a
version that old in what is commonly viewed as the 'cutting edge'
branch.
Just tossing out ideas here... if
On Mar 6, 2010, at 4:06 PM, Dr. David Kirkby wrote:
William Stein wrote:
Hi,
Thanks everybody for all the discussion of sage-5.0 goals. I've
made
a new sage-5.0 milestone
http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/milestone/sage-5.0
and I've made a list of our goals. I set the release goal da
On Mar 6, 2010, at 4:50 PM, Dr. David Kirkby wrote:
I thought there was going to be a 4.4 stabilisation release, but if
I create a new trac ticket, I'm given the milestone options are
4.3.4 and 4.5 - there is no 4.4 choice.
IMHO, it would be good if the stabilisation release did go ahead,
On Mar 6, 2010, at 6:57 PM, Franco Saliola wrote:
I recently stumbled over a bug in the pexpect module shipped with
Sage. It turns out that specifying the full path to a command doesn't
work; you get an UnboundLocalError exception. I've created a ticket
with an example:
http://trac.sagemath.
I recently stumbled over a bug in the pexpect module shipped with
Sage. It turns out that specifying the full path to a command doesn't
work; you get an UnboundLocalError exception. I've created a ticket
with an example:
http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/8471
The question is, do we pa
I thought there was going to be a 4.4 stabilisation release, but if I create a
new trac ticket, I'm given the milestone options are 4.3.4 and 4.5 - there is no
4.4 choice.
IMHO, it would be good if the stabilisation release did go ahead, and *only*
bug-fixes were permitted. i.e. no new code to
On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 4:06 PM, Dr. David Kirkby
wrote:
> William Stein wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Thanks everybody for all the discussion of sage-5.0 goals. I've made
>> a new sage-5.0 milestone
>>
>> http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/milestone/sage-5.0
>>
>> and I've made a list of our goals.
William Stein wrote:
Hi,
Thanks everybody for all the discussion of sage-5.0 goals. I've made
a new sage-5.0 milestone
http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/milestone/sage-5.0
and I've made a list of our goals. I set the release goal date at
June 1, 2010, which gives us a full 3 months to
On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 3:51 PM, memilanuk wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Another vote here for getting an old and/or broken version *out* of
> Debian unstable/experimental. Seems kind of ridiculous to have a
> version that old in what is commonly viewed as the 'cutting edge'
> branch.
>
> Just tossing out i
Hello,
Another vote here for getting an old and/or broken version *out* of
Debian unstable/experimental. Seems kind of ridiculous to have a
version that old in what is commonly viewed as the 'cutting edge'
branch.
Just tossing out ideas here... if its too much of a PITA to keep sage
meshed with
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 10:46:15PM +0100, Florent hivert wrote:
> > Quick question: many types have methods one_element() and
> > zero_element() which are used a lot. For example, ZZ.one() and
> > ZZ.zero() are aliases for ZZ.one_element() and ZZ.zero_element(). Is
> > your intention to depreca
I made a boo-boo and opened two tickets on the same topic.
#8461 can be closed as a duplicate of #8462. I know one would generally close
the later ticket, but I've already put a patch on the second ticket, showing the
results etc. It would seem more sensible to close #8461.
Since #8408 has be
On 03/05/2010 11:16 PM, Pat LeSmithe wrote:
As Jason said, the docstrings do indicate what model (simple, for now)
we're using to transform colors. We mention in several places in
colors.py docstrings that we reduce R, G, and B components modulo one.
But we could be more explicit.
Anyway, we co
Robert Bradshaw wrote:
I think you're making a mountain out of a molehill here--it's fairly
obvious in both the code and documentation that we're looking at RGB
triples here. The last couple of bits are off, but they clearly don't
matter (until we have 150-bit color output, though one would ha
On Mar 6, 3:37 pm, "ma...@mendelu.cz" wrote:
> I think, it does not have too much sense to have Debian package. It
> would be better to put compiled Debian binaries to sagemath.org
> download page.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Robert Marik
I agree that compiling sage is not too difficult, and I actually use
o
On 4 bře, 18:03, Florent Hivert wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> Disclaimer: I'm not a debian user and my intend is not to launch a flame nor
> to disregard the hard work that has been done to have a sage debian package.
>
Hi all,
I have three machines on Debian (notebook, PC, server). Compilation
Running the doctests on Solaris against 4.3.4.alpha0 I see this:
Expected:
Interact color selector labeled None, with default RGB color (0.5, 0.0,
1.0), widget 'colorpicker', and visible input box
Got:
Interact color selector labeled None, with default RGB color
(0.50196078431372548,
Hi,
Thanks everybody for all the discussion of sage-5.0 goals. I've made
a new sage-5.0 milestone
http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/milestone/sage-5.0
and I've made a list of our goals. I set the release goal date at
June 1, 2010, which gives us a full 3 months to meet the given goals.
It would be great if sage could have widgets like the ones wolphram
alpha has:
http://www.wolframalpha.com/downloads.html
I particularly like the one in:
http://phisycsandgnulinux.site11.com/
(I take this chance to invite you to my new website, if you know spanish...)
thank you!
Oscar
--
T
On Mar 6, 9:59 am, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
> well, this is trickier than you think.
> E.g. Python 2.6 has not made it into Debian stable yet.
> And installing Python 2.6 on Debian stable using the standard Debian
> source package
> installation mechanisms does not work.
> Python is needed for functi
Minh,
I wonder how one can contribute changes/patches to files in sage/doc/
en/constructions
It's also not always clear who wrote what there, and thus seems hard
to discuss possible
improvements with authors.
Thanks,
Dima
On Mar 6, 1:08 am, Minh Nguyen wrote:
> Hi Dan,
>
> On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 a
On Mar 6, 1:49 am, Robert Bradshaw
wrote:
> We're talking about adding and scaling colors here--there arguably
> isn't a "right" answer here, though we do want what we do to be good
> and consistent, and it is documented what it does.
That is probably true, but surprisingly, there are "wrong
On Mar 6, 2:57 am, Minh Nguyen wrote:
> Hi Uli
>
> On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 5:33 AM, kuli wrote:
>
>
>
> > Secondly, I want to ask you, if it would make sense (I think it makes)
> > to develop a computational logic module for sage math. I'm thinking of
> > tools for logic
>
> > -> CNF/DNF conver
Em 6 de março de 2010 13:29, Paulo César Pereira de Andrade
escreveu:
> 2010/3/6 Robert Bradshaw :
>> On Mar 5, 2010, at 6:33 PM, Minh Nguyen wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Dima,
>>>
>>> On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 1:27 PM, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
if it's PARI-dependent, it makes sense to upgrade PARI to th
2010/3/6 Robert Bradshaw :
> On Mar 5, 2010, at 6:33 PM, Minh Nguyen wrote:
>
>> Hi Dima,
>>
>> On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 1:27 PM, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
>>>
>>> if it's PARI-dependent, it makes sense to upgrade PARI to the latest
>>> version.
>>
>> Perhaps upgrading Pari could be a goal for Sage 5.0?
Pat LeSmithe wrote:
As Jason said, the docstrings do indicate what model (simple, for now)
we're using to transform colors. We mention in several places in
colors.py docstrings that we reduce R, G, and B components modulo one.
But we could be more explicit.
Anyway, we could make it possible to
On Mar 5, 2010, at 7:56 PM, Dr. David Kirkby wrote:
Nick Alexander wrote:
David is trying to argue that the goals for Sage-5.0 should be
* Official Solaris 10 support (all tests pass)
TARGET DATE: Sometime in March?
*instead* of the following:
* 90% doctest coverage score (=write about
On Mar 6, 7:27 am, "Dr. David Kirkby" wrote:
> Kasper Peeters wrote:
> > Has anyone considered emailing the official maintainer
>
> > Tim Abbott
>
> > and ask him whether he would be interested in handing over
> > maintainership to someone with more time to bring the debian package
> > up to
> The maintainers logic is clear they don't want to duplicate stuff. I can
> appreciate that. I suggest we approach them, saying we understand this, and
> that
> in general it would be silly to include everything. If we then produce a long
> list of packages which have needed to be patched, then i
On Mar 5, 2010, at 5:04 PM, Dr. David Kirkby wrote:
I just got a doc test failure on Solaris.
File "/export/home/drkirkby/32/sage-4.3.4.alpha0/devel/sage/sage/
plot/colors.py", line 660:
sage: gold / pi + yellow * e
Expected:
RGB color (0.51829585732141792, 0.49333037605210095, 0.0)
G
On Mar 5, 2010, at 12:23 AM, Simon King wrote:
Hi Robert!
On Mar 5, 12:42 am, Robert Bradshaw
wrote:
[...]
As soon as anything is done with the object, it
does a *real* import, replaces itself in G with the real thing, and
since the reference from G is gone, the LazyImport object would
eventu
I've heard that sage 3.4 was going to be something of an LTS, a
"stable" release. If so, it would be brilliant to include this one
with ubuntu, and then not produce another ubuntu package before the
next LTS. The custom with such repositories, even more so with debian,
is certainly not to get the l
On Mar 5, 2010, at 6:33 PM, Minh Nguyen wrote:
Hi Dima,
On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 1:27 PM, Dima Pasechnik
wrote:
if it's PARI-dependent, it makes sense to upgrade PARI to the latest
version.
Perhaps upgrading Pari could be a goal for Sage 5.0?
It is: http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/wiki
37 matches
Mail list logo
