Hi,
gcc was installed by Sage. You can find the install log here -
http://www.imsc.res.in/~rajeev/install.log
Rajeev
On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 6:19 AM, Volker Braun wrote:
> Did your compilation build the bundled gcc or did it use the system gcc? For
> example, is there a $SAGE_LOCAL/bin/gcc in
Hi
On 29 April 2012 17:34, Nicolas M. Thiery wrote:
>Dear Jan,
>
> (CC to Thierry Monteil, and the Sage Days 38 organizers)
>
> On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 05:15:00PM +0200, Jan Groenewald wrote:
> >With Ubuntu 12.04 released, here is a reminder.
> >
> >
> > https://launchpad.net/~ai
On 30 April 2012 05:32, Benjamin Jones wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 9:35 AM, David Kirkby wrote:
>> The fact there are functions in Sage untested is worrying, and I think
>> its fair to say most people would like to see 100% doctest coverage,
>> but IMHO, we need a plan for this to happen, an
On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 9:35 AM, David Kirkby wrote:
> The fact there are functions in Sage untested is worrying, and I think
> its fair to say most people would like to see 100% doctest coverage,
> but IMHO, we need a plan for this to happen, and the plan inforced,
> otherwise this will not happe
On Apr 29, 9:23 pm, Volker Braun wrote:
> Its pretty clear that this version does not support SSE4.
... and, frankly speaking, one shouldn't be surprised that Sage
doesn't support ancient Linux distros, at least not out-of-the-box.
There are a couple of ways to fix / work around this, e.g.:
-
Did your compilation build the bundled gcc or did it use the system gcc?
For example, is there a $SAGE_LOCAL/bin/gcc in your incomplete compile? If
you can, post the whole log e.g. to pastebin.
On Sunday, April 29, 2012 2:07:53 PM UTC-4, Rajeev wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Here's the assembler's info
On Sunday, April 29, 2012, David Kirkby wrote:
> On 29 April 2012 18:00, William Stein >
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Sunday, April 29, 2012, David Kirkby wrote:
>
> >>
> >> Perhaps you would agree to the number 5 I suggested earlier.
> >>
> >> 5) Finding individuals that have written code that is not
On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 03:17:23PM +, Simon King wrote:
> On 2012-04-29, Vincent D <20100.delecr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > In many documentation string (more than a hundred) of the file
> > sage.groups.perm_groups.permgroup_named.py there are many EXAMPLES
> > that are followed by
On 29 April 2012 18:00, William Stein wrote:
>
>
> On Sunday, April 29, 2012, David Kirkby wrote:
>>
>> Perhaps you would agree to the number 5 I suggested earlier.
>>
>> 5) Finding individuals that have written code that is not tested, and
>> not merging any more patches from them unless they fi
On 29 April 2012 20:58, Simon King wrote:
> sage: foobar?
> it would be doable that one reads:
> Type: function
> Base Class:
> String Form:
> Namespace: Interactive
> Loaded File: ...
> Source File: ...
> Definition: foobar(x, y)
> Docstring:
>
On 2012-04-29 18:41, Rajeev Singh wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I got the following error while compiling sage-5.0.beta14.
Could you please post the contents of
spkg/logs/mpir-2.1.3.p9.log
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to
Hi Johan,
On 2012-04-29, Johan Grönqvist wrote:
> My assumption is that it is relatively easy to write a doctest.
>
> It may very well be a bad idea, as it may be a bad user experience for
> people expecting a professional-looking and polished math-suite. If so,
> feel free to ignore it.
>
> I
Dear Jan,
(CC to Thierry Monteil, and the Sage Days 38 organizers)
On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 05:15:00PM +0200, Jan Groenewald wrote:
>With Ubuntu 12.04 released, here is a reminder.
>
>https://launchpad.net/~aims/+archive/sagemath
>
>apt-add-repository ppa:aims/sagemath
>a
Its pretty clear that this version does not support SSE4.
On Sunday, April 29, 2012 2:07:53 PM UTC-4, Rajeev wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Here's the assembler's info -
>
> $ as --version
> GNU assembler 2.16.91.0.5 20051219 (SUSE Linux)
> Copyright 2005 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
> This program
On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 1:24 PM, Nils Bruin wrote:
> On Apr 29, 7:35 am, David Kirkby wrote:
>> The fact there are functions in Sage untested is worrying,
>
> Indeed, it would be nice if all code in Sage would be covered by
> tests. Having doctests for very many functions probably correlates
> wi
Compilation from scratch + install Lie went well on the last Ubuntu,
X86-64, server version.
yours
t.d.
--
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, visit this gr
On Apr 29, 7:35 am, David Kirkby wrote:
> The fact there are functions in Sage untested is worrying,
Indeed, it would be nice if all code in Sage would be covered by
tests. Having doctests for very many functions probably correlates
with that, so it probably helps to aim for it. However, doctests
Hi,
Here's the assembler's info -
$ as --version
GNU assembler 2.16.91.0.5 20051219 (SUSE Linux)
Copyright 2005 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This program is free software; you may redistribute it under the terms of
the GNU General Public License. This program has absolutely no warranty.
This a
Seems like you have outdated binutils, the assembler doesn't understand the
gcc output. What is the output of "as --version"?
On Sunday, April 29, 2012 12:58:48 PM UTC-4, Rajeev wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I get the same error. I used the following commands -
>
> $ pwd
> /home/rajeev/bin/sage-5.0.bet
2012-04-29 16:35, David Kirkby skrev:
The fact there are functions in Sage untested is worrying, and I think
its fair to say most people would like to see 100% doctest coverage,
but IMHO, we need a plan for this to happen, and the plan inforced,
otherwise this will not happen soon. So I'm suggest
On Sunday, April 29, 2012, David Kirkby wrote:
> On 29 April 2012 16:10, William Stein >
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Sunday, April 29, 2012, David Kirkby wrote:
>
> >> > 4) Finding individuals that have written code that is not tested, and
> >> > not merging any more patches from them unless they firs
Hi,
I get the same error. I used the following commands -
$ pwd
/home/rajeev/bin/sage-5.0.beta14
$ ./sage -f
http://boxen.math.washington.edu/home/leif/Sage/spkgs/ecm-6.3.p7.spkg
Rajeev
On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 10:22 PM, Volker Braun wrote:
> Can you try this version:
>
> http://trac.sagemath
Can you try this version:
http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/12830
On Sunday, April 29, 2012 12:41:06 PM UTC-4, Rajeev wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I got the following error while compiling sage-5.0.beta14. I had got
> the same error with sage-5.0.beta13 which I reported earlier.
>
>
> libtool: c
Hi,
I got the following error while compiling sage-5.0.beta14. I had got
the same error with sage-5.0.beta13 which I reported earlier.
libtool: compile: gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I./x86_64
-I/home/rajeev/bin/sage-5.0.beta14/local/include
-I/home/rajeev/bin/sage-5.0.beta14/local/include -march=na
Le dimanche 29 avril, Jeroen Demeyer a écrit:
> On 2012-04-29 14:07, William Stein wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I took a particular -- let's just say random
> Why "random"? If people are going to post bug reports for that
> "random" version, I don't know what to do with that.
If people say "A, B, C, b
On 29 April 2012 16:10, William Stein wrote:
>
>
> On Sunday, April 29, 2012, David Kirkby wrote:
>> > 4) Finding individuals that have written code that is not tested, and
>> > not merging any more patches from them unless they first add tests to
>> > the ALL code they have already written
>
>
>
Hi!
On 2012-04-29, Vincent D <20100.delecr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> In many documentation string (more than a hundred) of the file
> sage.groups.perm_groups.permgroup_named.py there are many EXAMPLES
> that are followed by only one ':' and no whiteline after it. It seems
> that the associ
On Sunday, April 29, 2012, Vincent D <20100.delecr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> In many documentation string (more than a hundred) of the file
> sage.groups.perm_groups.permgroup_named.py there are many EXAMPLES
> that are followed by only one ':' and no whiteline after it. It seems
> that th
On Sunday, April 29, 2012, David Kirkby wrote:
> On 29 April 2012 15:35, David Kirkby >
> wrote:
>
> > A few ideas that might work, are below. I would add, I'm not
> > suggesting they are all very good (in particular 1 and 4 are a bit
> > excessive), but I mention them anyway.
>
> Sorry, it was 2
On 29 April 2012 15:35, David Kirkby wrote:
> A few ideas that might work, are below. I would add, I'm not
> suggesting they are all very good (in particular 1 and 4 are a bit
> excessive), but I mention them anyway.
Sorry, it was 2 and 4 which I feel are going too far.
This is going ta bit too
Hello,
In many documentation string (more than a hundred) of the file
sage.groups.perm_groups.permgroup_named.py there are many EXAMPLES
that are followed by only one ':' and no whiteline after it. It seems
that the associated examples are tested with "sage -t" but the
documentation looks ugly. Do
The fact there are functions in Sage untested is worrying, and I think
its fair to say most people would like to see 100% doctest coverage,
but IMHO, we need a plan for this to happen, and the plan inforced,
otherwise this will not happen soon. So I'm suggesting we collect
ideas for a plan.
Two th
Do 10.6 binaries no longer work on 10.7? At some point they did, did they not?
On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 05:36, William Stein wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 7:32 AM, Jeroen Demeyer
> wrote:
>> On 2012-04-29 14:07, William Stein wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I took a particular -- let's just say random
On 2012-04-29 14:36, William Stein wrote:
> Thanks for pointing that out, which I've never heard of before.
> Sadly, by far my main motivation -- based on constant requests -- is
> not represented there. (OS X 10.7)
I agree, that's unfortunate indeed. Is there any hope of getting back
access to an
Could somebody please review ticket #12272:
http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/12272
It is a very trivial ticket adding "# long time" at various places. I
would like to get this merged in sage-5.0 to bring the ptest time down a
bit. Since it is really just about adding "# long time", I ho
On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 7:32 AM, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
> On 2012-04-29 14:07, William Stein wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I took a particular -- let's just say random
> Why "random"?
> If people are going to post bug reports for that "random"
> version, I don't know what to do with that.
Don't do anything
On 2012-04-29 14:07, William Stein wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I took a particular -- let's just say random
Why "random"? If people are going to post bug reports for that "random"
version, I don't know what to do with that.
Also, maybe the following needs more advertising: you can find binaries
created on
Hi,
I took a particular -- let's just say random -- version of
sage.5.0.betaX, and built binaries on several popular architectures.
These may be of use to the hordes of people asking me for a way to use
Sage 5.0 or a way to use Sage at all on OS X:
http://wstein.org/home/wstein/tmp/sage-5.0/
--
This still says you need a fortran compiler, except on OSX, with no
mention of the gcc package, or how one might use or disable it. I'm
not sure of the methods myself, but clearly it needs changing before
5.0 is released.
Dave
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.co
Le samedi 28 avril, Julien Puydt a écrit:
> I'll post updates about the results of make ptestlong when I'll have
> them (tomorrow).
Here they are :
--
The following tests failed:
sage -t --long -force_lib
devel/
With patch http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/12362 we
inadvertently changed default value of parameter ``fast`` from True to
False. Sorry about that.
Patch http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/12888 put it back to
True. Furthermore, it sets default method to ``Sage`` which is faster
t
41 matches
Mail list logo
