Re: [sage-devel] patchbot trouble

Am 28/01/13 20:00, schrieb Robert Bradshaw: On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 6:58 AM, Christian Nassau wrote: Dear patchbot-technicians, For the past two days I had a local patchbot running and now it has eaten up all of the disk space and stopped. (I admit that there wasn't much space to begin with,

Re: [sage-devel] How to determine the argspec of functions defined in .pyx files?

On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 1:55 AM, Simon King wrote: > Hi! > > At #14017, I am trying to give a proper solution to a problem that > currently prevents us from defining, e.g., UniqueRepresentation in a > .pyx file (which would gives us a speed-up): Even when you have a > "def" function in a .pyx file

Re: [sage-devel] patchbot trouble

On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 6:58 AM, Christian Nassau wrote: > Dear patchbot-technicians, > > For the past two days I had a local patchbot running and now it has eaten up > all of the disk space and stopped. > > (I admit that there wasn't much space to begin with, just something around > 6G.) > > As a

[sage-devel] Re: patchbot trouble

You should count on just a bit less than 100G for running the Sage patchbot. Just get a new harddisk ;-) On Monday, January 28, 2013 2:58:20 PM UTC, Christian Nassau wrote: > >- what is the size requirement of a long-running patchbot? (assuming > the size eventually stabilizes) > -- Y

[sage-devel] 5.6: segfault @ modular/modsym/space.py

Hi, for a self compiled 5.6, one doctest fails for me. $ sage -t -force_lib devel/sage/sage/modular/modsym/space.py sage -t -force_lib "devel/sage/sage/modular/modsym/space.py" ** File "/home/opt/sage/sage-5.6/devel/sage/sage/mod

[sage-devel] Re: Clean up spkg/bin/sage (#13996) needs review

On 01/28/2013 09:50 PM, Jeroen Demeyer wrote: 1. There is code in spkg/bin/sage which doesn't serve any purpose anymore, or options which aren't supported anymore. Clean this up. 2. Rename the shell function sage() to interactive_sage() to minimize confusion (we already have $SAGE_ROOT/s

[sage-devel] patchbot trouble

Dear patchbot-technicians, For the past two days I had a local patchbot running and now it has eaten up all of the disk space and stopped. (I admit that there wasn't much space to begin with, just something around 6G.) As a consequence, most of the failures that were reported on http://patc

[sage-devel] Re: Sage-5.2 on raspberry pi

On 2013-01-28, Dan wrote: > --=_Part_291_16107307.1359380648388 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > Are there other packages that need to be installed for notebook support? > > -d > > sage: notebook() > The notebook files are stored in: sage_notebook.sagenb > ***

[sage-devel] Re: Error building sage-5.7.beta1 on FreeBSD

Any general-purpose binary should be built with -fPIC. The only exceptions would be embedded or specialist supercomputing apps where you need to squeeze out that extra 1%. PIC is a requirement for shared libraries and aslr, for starters. On Monday, January 28, 2013 2:51:33 AM UTC, Stephen Montg

Re: [sage-devel] Error building sage-5.7.beta1 on FreeBSD

On 2013-01-28 14:09, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote: > Do you still need it? I deleted the build, so I would need to rebuild > it to get it back. It would be useful for determining what went wrong, so please yes. What is strange is that SciPy seems to add -fPIC anyway by default on all other syst

[sage-devel] Clean up spkg/bin/sage (#13996) needs review

1. There is code in spkg/bin/sage which doesn't serve any purpose anymore, or options which aren't supported anymore. Clean this up. 2. Rename the shell function sage() to interactive_sage() to minimize confusion (we already have $SAGE_ROOT/sage and $SAGE_ROOT/spkg/bin/sage) 3. Use exec

[sage-devel] Re: Sage-5.2 on raspberry pi

Are there other packages that need to be installed for notebook support? -d sage: notebook() The notebook files are stored in: sage_notebook.sagenb ** ** * Open your web browser to http://localhost:808

Re: [sage-devel] Error building sage-5.7.beta1 on FreeBSD

On 01/28/2013 02:47 AM, Jeroen Demeyer wrote: > Could you please provide the complete build log of SciPy and ATLAS? > Do you still need it? I deleted the build, so I would need to rebuild it to get it back. Also, the FreeBSD version of sage uses FreeBSD's port of atlas. -- You received this

Re: [sage-devel] Problems installing sage 5.6

On Monday, January 28, 2013 2:07:14 PM UTC+1, Jean-Pierre Flori wrote: > > > > On Monday, January 28, 2013 11:38:18 AM UTC+1, Volker Braun wrote: >> >> So we add an M4 spkg to be able to build PPL with slightly different >> configure switches, hoping that gcc will work better with that preloaded

Re: [sage-devel] Problems installing sage 5.6

On Monday, January 28, 2013 11:38:18 AM UTC+1, Volker Braun wrote: > > So we add an M4 spkg to be able to build PPL with slightly different > configure switches, hoping that gcc will work better with that preloaded > ppl version than with another preloaded ppl version. It might work, and > pro

Re: [sage-devel] Problems installing sage 5.6

The idea would be to use relative rpaths ($ORIGIN). This would also fix the current security issue in our binary dist where some binaries have absolute rpaths set. So if somebody has access to the path that is hardcoded then he can inject arbitrary libraries. So if anything it would make things

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Sage 5.6 on ARM

Le 28/01/2013 11:55, Dima Pasechnik a écrit : On 2013-01-28, Julien Puydt wrote: Hi, here is where we stand: - build: ok, even though libm4rie's conversion.c is a pain ; - ptestlong: three failing tests, related to libc's gamma function (as usual... I should find the time to fix that...) ;

Re: [sage-devel] Problems installing sage 5.6

On 28/01/13 23:50, Francois Bissey wrote: > On 28/01/13 23:45, Jeroen Demeyer wrote: >> On 2013-01-28 01:02, Volker Braun wrote: >>> On Sunday, January 27, 2013 9:06:10 PM UTC, Jeroen Demeyer wrote: >>> >>> With a known fix: >>> http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/12672 >>>

[sage-devel] Re: Sage 5.6 on ARM

On 2013-01-28, Julien Puydt wrote: > Hi, > > here is where we stand: > > - build: ok, even though libm4rie's conversion.c is a pain ; > > - ptestlong: three failing tests, related to libc's gamma function (as > usual... I should find the time to fix that...) ; > > - bdist: available in the bdist/

Re: [sage-devel] Problems installing sage 5.6

On 28/01/13 23:45, Jeroen Demeyer wrote: > On 2013-01-28 01:02, Volker Braun wrote: >> On Sunday, January 27, 2013 9:06:10 PM UTC, Jeroen Demeyer wrote: >> >> With a known fix: >> http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/12672 >> >> >>

Re: [sage-devel] Problems installing sage 5.6

On 2013-01-28 01:02, Volker Braun wrote: > On Sunday, January 27, 2013 9:06:10 PM UTC, Jeroen Demeyer wrote: > > With a known fix: > http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/12672 > > > > Is it? Doesn't seem to be working on OSX 10.4

Re: [sage-devel] Problems installing sage 5.6

So we add an M4 spkg to be able to build PPL with slightly different configure switches, hoping that gcc will work better with that preloaded ppl version than with another preloaded ppl version. It might work, and probably will not work on some platforms. It just doesn't sound like a final fix

Re: [sage-devel] Problems installing sage 5.6

On Sunday, January 27, 2013 10:06:10 PM UTC+1, Jeroen Demeyer wrote: > > This is a known problem: > http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/11391 > > With a known fix: > http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/12672 > > But people don't like the fix: > > https://groups.google.com/forum/?

[sage-devel] How to determine the argspec of functions defined in .pyx files?

Hi! At #14017, I am trying to give a proper solution to a problem that currently prevents us from defining, e.g., UniqueRepresentation in a .pyx file (which would gives us a speed-up): Even when you have a "def" function in a .pyx file, we can sometimes not detect the correct argspec. Example:

Re: [sage-devel] Error building sage-5.7.beta1 on FreeBSD

On 28/01/13 21:48, Jeroen Demeyer wrote: > On 2013-01-28 09:25, Francois Bissey wrote: >> On 28/01/13 17:56, Francois Bissey wrote: >>> My initial answer was a bit rushed. The spkg needs fixing in my opinion. I >>> think -fPIC should be used for scipy and I overlooked that in my ticket >>> review

Re: [sage-devel] Error building sage-5.7.beta1 on FreeBSD

On 2013-01-28 09:25, Francois Bissey wrote: > On 28/01/13 17:56, Francois Bissey wrote: >> My initial answer was a bit rushed. The spkg needs fixing in my opinion. I >> think -fPIC should be used for scipy and I overlooked that in my ticket >> review. I think it can be fixed with redefining FC, >

Re: [sage-devel] Error building sage-5.7.beta1 on FreeBSD

Could you please provide the complete build log of SciPy and ATLAS? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To pos

Re: [sage-devel] Error building sage-5.7.beta1 on FreeBSD

On 28/01/13 17:56, Francois Bissey wrote: > My initial answer was a bit rushed. The spkg needs fixing in my opinion. I > think -fPIC should be used for scipy and I overlooked that in my ticket > review. I think it can be fixed with redefining FC, > I'll check later tonight when I have some time.