Le mercredi 08 février, Dr. David Kirkby a écrit:
> On 02/ 8/12 10:18 AM, Julien Puydt wrote:
> > Le samedi 04 février, Julien Puydt a écrit:
> >> After I compile mp.c with only the -O switch, pari and the rest of
> >> sage compiled correctly.
> >
> > Amusing remark :
> >
> > sage: float(maxima('1e
Hi,
A couple of simple developer questions. Sorry...
(1) I uploaded a new patch of the same name with the previous patch, but
the patchbot doesn't seem to be triggered. I already tried "?kick", with no
help. Is there other way to kick the patchbot? Do I need to upload the same
patch with other
On 02/ 9/12 04:33 AM, William Stein wrote:
There is:
http://sagemath.org/doc/installation/source.html#environment-variables
I am all for moving that list to README.txt. It's often confused me
that it wasn't there.
-- william
I think its good to have it on the web page. If it's "move
On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 4:29 PM, Jonathan Bober wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 4:00 PM, William Stein wrote:
>>
>>
>> After following this whole thread, I still have absolutely no idea
>> what this "non-trivial project" even is. What functionality is being
>> proposed to add to the Sage buil
On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 6:09 PM, William Stein wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Sage 1.0 was released for Sage Days 6, which was almost exactly 6 years ago:
>
> http://sagemath.org/old/days1/
I believe you meant to write 'Sage Days 1', which brings back fond memories.
I.
> --
> William Stein
> Professor
See the following tex.stackexchange links for this interesting
project. Kudos to Dan Drake (and the predecessor package and author)
for having SageTeX inspire this, even if unknowingly.
http://tex.stackexchange.com/questions/40937/how-to-publish-a-package-that-includes-scripts-and-or-executables
Hi,
Sage 1.0 was released for Sage Days 6, which was almost exactly 6 years ago:
http://sagemath.org/old/days1/
--
William Stein
Professor of Mathematics
University of Washington
http://wstein.org
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe fr
On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 16:26, William Stein wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 4:20 PM, Robert Bradshaw
> wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 4:00 PM, William Stein wrote:
>>> On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 3:39 PM, Dr. David Kirkby
>>> wrote:
On 02/ 8/12 09:41 AM, Julien Puydt wrote:
>
> Le mar
On Thu, 2012-02-09 at 00:12 +, Dr. David Kirkby wrote:
> On 02/ 8/12 03:48 AM, William Stein wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Does anybody want to help put together a GSoC application for Sage for 2012?
> >
> > http://code.google.com/soc/
> >
> > The application deadline is March 9.
> >
> > So far, I
On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 4:00 PM, William Stein wrote:
>
> After following this whole thread, I still have absolutely no idea
> what this "non-trivial project" even is. What functionality is being
> proposed to add to the Sage build system?
>
> -- William
>
>
>
I have been wondering the same thin
On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 4:20 PM, Robert Bradshaw
wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 4:00 PM, William Stein wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 3:39 PM, Dr. David Kirkby
>> wrote:
>>> On 02/ 8/12 09:41 AM, Julien Puydt wrote:
Le mardi 7/2/2012, David Kirkby a écrit :
>
> Unfortunately
On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 4:00 PM, William Stein wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 3:39 PM, Dr. David Kirkby
> wrote:
>> On 02/ 8/12 09:41 AM, Julien Puydt wrote:
>>>
>>> Le mardi 7/2/2012, David Kirkby a écrit :
Unfortunately, from a developers point of view, it is not the easiest
lan
On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 4:12 PM, Dr. David Kirkby
wrote:
> On 02/ 8/12 03:48 AM, William Stein wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Does anybody want to help put together a GSoC application for Sage for
>> 2012?
>>
>> http://code.google.com/soc/
>>
>> The application deadline is March 9.
>>
>> So far, I think
On 02/ 8/12 03:48 AM, William Stein wrote:
Hi,
Does anybody want to help put together a GSoC application for Sage for 2012?
http://code.google.com/soc/
The application deadline is March 9.
So far, I think we've applied 5 times to have Sage as a mentoring
organizing, and been denied every
On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 3:39 PM, Dr. David Kirkby
wrote:
> On 02/ 8/12 09:41 AM, Julien Puydt wrote:
>>
>> Le mardi 7/2/2012, David Kirkby a écrit :
>>>
>>> Unfortunately, from a developers point of view, it is not the easiest
>>> language to learn, and my experience of many Sage developers would
On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 3:46 PM, Dr. David Kirkby
wrote:
> On 02/ 8/12 09:11 PM, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
>>
>> On 2012-02-08 16:37, David Kirkby wrote:
>>>
>>> Unfortunately, due to what appears to be a bug with Pynac, importing a
>>> lot of python modules, 64-bit binaries on Solaris do not run well.
On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 3:52 PM, Dr. David Kirkby
wrote:
> On 02/ 8/12 10:18 AM, Julien Puydt wrote:
>>
>> Le samedi 04 février, Julien Puydt a écrit:
>>>
>>> After I compile mp.c with only the -O switch, pari and the rest of
>>> sage compiled correctly.
>>
>>
>> Amusing remark :
>>
>> sage: float(
On 02/ 8/12 10:18 AM, Julien Puydt wrote:
Le samedi 04 février, Julien Puydt a écrit:
After I compile mp.c with only the -O switch, pari and the rest of
sage compiled correctly.
Amusing remark :
sage: float(maxima('1e+17'))
1e+17
One problem down... It's a shame others came up...
Snark on #
On 02/ 8/12 09:11 PM, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
On 2012-02-08 16:37, David Kirkby wrote:
Unfortunately, due to what appears to be a bug with Pynac, importing a
lot of python modules, 64-bit binaries on Solaris do not run well.
So, if I understand you correctly, Sage *builds* but it doesn't actually
On 02/ 8/12 09:41 AM, Julien Puydt wrote:
Le mardi 7/2/2012, David Kirkby a écrit :
Unfortunately, from a developers point of view, it is not the easiest
language to learn, and my experience of many Sage developers would
suggest they will not be over keen on studying the details
of .autoconf I
On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 7:19 PM, Julien Puydt wrote:
> Le Tue, 7 Feb 2012 20:23:08 -0800 (PST),
> Jason a écrit :
> > One benefit of programs like matlab and mathematica is that not only
> > do they bring together many different functions with a common syntax,
> > but that they (presumably) have s
On 02/08/12 16:13, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
> On 2012-02-08 18:40, Jean-Pierre Flori wrote:
>> In some packages, we already have some "dependencies" section.
>> I guess this could be used (or put somewhere else in the spkg) and
>> then used by Sage (and not the spkg-install script itself, just as
>> w
On 2012-02-08 18:40, Jean-Pierre Flori wrote:
> In some packages, we already have some "dependencies" section.
> I guess this could be used (or put somewhere else in the spkg) and
> then used by Sage (and not the spkg-install script itself, just as
> what is done with SAGE_CHECK variable and spgk-c
On 2012-02-08 16:37, David Kirkby wrote:
> Unfortunately, due to what appears to be a bug with Pynac, importing a
> lot of python modules, 64-bit binaries on Solaris do not run well.
So, if I understand you correctly, Sage *builds* but it doesn't actually
work properly? I actually meant "builds an
On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 20:43, Christopher Swenson wrote:
> There should be a section along the lines of "vouchers from Google and other
> large organizations".
yes, there is in deed such a section. thanks for your support :)
H
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.
On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 11:43 AM, Christopher Swenson
wrote:
> I thought I would not that, to whomever is going to write the application,
> be sure to list me down as a Google supporter, since I think it would be
> great to have a Sage GSoC project. There should be a section along the
> lines of "
I thought I would not that, to whomever is going to write the application,
be sure to list me down as a Google supporter, since I think it would be
great to have a Sage GSoC project. There should be a section along the
lines of "vouchers from Google and other large organizations".
If I had a bit
Le samedi 04 février, Julien Puydt a écrit:
> After I compile mp.c with only the -O switch, pari and the rest of
> sage compiled correctly.
Amusing remark :
sage: float(maxima('1e+17'))
1e+17
One problem down... It's a shame others came up...
Snark on #sagemath
--
To post to this group, send
On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 9:57 PM, Keshav Kini wrote:
> Sorry, I managed to activate some button on Google Groups accidentally and
> prematurely post the above message...
>
> +100. Our main problem with Mercurial is that we are not *using* it. We are
> just using Mercurial as a way for Jeroen to gene
In some packages, we already have some "dependencies" section.
I guess this could be used (or put somewhere else in the spkg) and
then used by Sage (and not the spkg-install script itself, just as
what is done with SAGE_CHECK variable and spgk-check script) to check
for dependencies.
On 8 fév, 18:
On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 7:47 PM, Julien Puydt wrote:
> Le mercredi 08 février, Jeroen Demeyer a écrit:
>> On 2012-02-08 04:23, Julien Puydt wrote:
>> > Le 8/2/2012, Keshav Kini a écrit :
>> >
>> >> Upstream configure scripts tend to check for dependencies by just
>> >> testing if it can use them.
On 8 February 2012 12:57, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
> Does anyone here have a system on which
> * building without setting SAGE64 works
> * building with SAGE64=yes works
> * the result in both cases is actually different
>
>
Yes
> The whole SAGE64 thing seems like a huge hack.
I tend to agree
On 02/07/2012 11:20 PM, kcrisman wrote:
I hesitate to say I would be a good mentor, but there are a lot of
things in symbolics and graphics that would be appropriate for this
that I'd like to try with some of my students. Especially piecewise
functions and such. Continuing nontrivial Geogebra
Does anyone here have a system on which
* building without setting SAGE64 works
* building with SAGE64=yes works
* the result in both cases is actually different
The whole SAGE64 thing seems like a huge hack. I'm also afraid that it
isn't tested much.
--
To post to this group, send an email
On 2012-02-08 04:47, Julien Puydt wrote:
> No, you don't have spkg/standard/deps for this, as spkg/standard/deps
> is for *mandatory* packages, and the discussion was about *optional*
> packages ;-)
Maybe the best solution then is to add logic to install optional
packages to spkg/standard/deps?
-
Le mercredi 08 février, Jeroen Demeyer a écrit:
> On 2012-02-08 04:23, Julien Puydt wrote:
> > Le 8/2/2012, Keshav Kini a écrit :
> >
> >> Upstream configure scripts tend to check for dependencies by just
> >> testing if it can use them. I guess what is meant here is that
> >> spkg-install could
On 2012-02-08 04:23, Julien Puydt wrote:
> Le 8/2/2012, Keshav Kini a écrit :
>
>> Upstream configure scripts tend to check for dependencies by just
>> testing if it can use them. I guess what is meant here is that
>> spkg-install could check whether certain SPKGs had been installed
>> into the S
On Wednesday, February 8, 2012 1:18:35 PM UTC+1, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
>
> Something like this...
>
thx. done!
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to
sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, vis
Le 8/2/2012, Keshav Kini a écrit :
> Upstream configure scripts tend to check for dependencies by just
> testing if it can use them. I guess what is meant here is that
> spkg-install could check whether certain SPKGs had been installed
> into the Sage installation. Also, upstream might not be awa
Le Tue, 7 Feb 2012 20:23:08 -0800 (PST),
Jason a écrit :
> One benefit of programs like matlab and mathematica is that not only
> do they bring together many different functions with a common syntax,
> but that they (presumably) have standardized precision and accuracy
> control. So coming up with
Hi Harald,
On 8 February 2012 19:00, Harald Schilly wrote:
>
>
> On Wednesday, February 8, 2012 1:12:22 AM UTC+1, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
>>
>> as a courtesy to the new users, one at least should put a big warning on
>> the download page of this buggy download
>> (*mirrorsname*/sage/osx/intel/index
On 2012-02-08 01:29, John H Palmieri wrote:
>
>
> On Tuesday, February 7, 2012 3:06:14 PM UTC-8, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
>
> I came across the following in the Sage Developer guide:
>
>- If your package depends on another package, say boehmgc, then you
> should check that thi
BTW I would also point out that all these dependency problems are basically
solved in Burcin's `lmonade` repackaging of Sage, in case anyone reading
this is not aware of that excellent project.
.. lmonade_: http://www.lmona.de/
-Keshav
Join us in #sagemath on irc.freenode.net !
--
To po
On 2012-02-08 12:22, Keshav Kini wrote:
> Upstream configure scripts tend to check for dependencies by just
> testing if it can use them. I guess what is meant here is that
> spkg-install could check whether certain SPKGs had been installed into
> the Sage installation.
The upstream configure scri
Upstream configure scripts tend to check for dependencies by just testing
if it can use them. I guess what is meant here is that spkg-install could
check whether certain SPKGs had been installed into the Sage installation.
Also, upstream might not be aware of certain dependencies it might gain b
Le Tue, 7 Feb 2012 16:13:10 -0800,
Jonathan Bober a écrit :
> See http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/12449
>
> I made a patch to change the way that sage evaluates symbolic
> functions for basic python types, and at the same time changed RDF to
> just use math.gamma() instead of gsl's gam
Le 7/2/2012, John H Palmieri a écrit :
> This is relevant for optional packages, so maybe it should say:
>
> If your package depends on an optional package, say ..., then you
> should
>
> As Dima points out, Simon King's group cohomology package does
> something like this.
>
> Is the 'de
Le mardi 7/2/2012, David Kirkby a écrit :
> Unfortunately, from a developers point of view, it is not the easiest
> language to learn, and my experience of many Sage developers would
> suggest they will not be over keen on studying the details
> of .autoconf I can't exactly blame them either.
If
I've started to write a GSOC 2012 application on the day we got rejected in
2011. Whoever wants to help, i'll add you to the google docs document. I'm
fine with any contributions or even submitting this as the "notebook" and
not sage itself. I also got some feedback from the last submissions
di
On Wednesday, February 8, 2012 1:12:22 AM UTC+1, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
>
> as a courtesy to the new users, one at least should put a big warning on
> the download page of this buggy download
> (*mirrorsname*/sage/osx/intel/index.html)
> And tell them to use the Terminal (i.e. non '-app' file) v
Hi Martin,
On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 9:00 PM, Martin Albrecht
wrote:
> c) M1RI, that's the code Tom wrote for dense linear algebra over GF(3) -
> GF(7). As far as I understand it, it's a bunch of Sage worksheets at the
> moment, i.e. a proof of concept.
Where are these Sage worksheets?
--
Regards
One benefit of programs like matlab and mathematica is that not only
do they bring together many different functions with a common syntax,
but that they (presumably) have standardized precision and accuracy
control. So coming up with a standard in this area is important. I
think such a standard cou
> Continuing nontrivial Geogebra integration could
> be another very appropriate one.
>
> - kcrisman
Big +1 to that.
>
> * webwork/sage integration
>
I would also add integration with moodle (maybe that would include
ldap?)
There is also some mathematical stuff that i would like to see in
Sage
Hi,
I could be tempted to mentor as well, but the group of potential beneficiaries
of the stuff I have in mind is much smaller than notebook stuff or the Android
app. Anyway, here it goes:
a) Dense linear algebra over extension fields. I'm meeting Burcin tomorrow to
work on this, so we'll have
54 matches
Mail list logo
