Hi Nathann,
On 2014-12-18, Nathann Cohen wrote:
> So something like:
> - Big speedup on all architectures --> timings
> - Comparable results --> a big red warning or a note saying "try for
> yourself, we don't know your hardware"
That sounds like a reasonable rule of thumb.
Here, it is like th
Hi Peter,
On 2014-12-19, Peter Bruin wrote:
> Sigh. Even after installing automake 1.13.4, the maxima spkg refuses to
>> build. However, sage still starts.
>>
>
> Yes, one annoying thing is that you specifically need Automake 1.11.
Amazing.
Anyway: With #17525 applied, maxima builds w/o probl
another trivial review!
--
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 post to this group, send email to sage-devel@g
this is an easy review!
--
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 post to this group, send email to sage-devel@go
On Friday, December 19, 2014 4:03:44 PM UTC+1, Bruno Grenet wrote:
>
> I've changed recently the status of a ticket to "needs review" since I
> think it is not relevant anymore, and I wanted it to be closed. I now
> guess it is not the right approach... What should I do in such a case?
>
> Put
I've changed recently the status of a ticket to "needs review" since I
think it is not relevant anymore, and I wanted it to be closed. I now
guess it is not the right approach... What should I do in such a case?
For concreteness it is ticket #2907
(http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/2907) that as
On 2014-12-19 13:46, Simon King wrote:
Here is the log:
http://sage.math.washington.edu/home/SimonKing/logs/install-6.5.b3.log
Note that it ended with byte-compiling a lot of stuff from the Sage
library. Seems unlikely to me that this was done parallel to building
maxima...
Why unlikely? That's
On 2014-12-19 13:59, Simon King wrote:
So, sage will keep reporting all failed build attempts that have ever
happened in the past and that have not been followed by a successful
build of (a more recent version of) the same package.
Whether it's a good idea or not, that's indeed the case.
--
You
Hi all,
See http://trac.sagemath.org/report/30 for the 283 tickets currently
needing review. Wow!
I want to encourage people to take a little time to look at these, because
I think that many of them are either painfully easy to review, or in fact
are not needing review at all.
Painfully easy
Hi Simon,
Sigh. Even after installing automake 1.13.4, the maxima spkg refuses to
> build. However, sage still starts.
>
Yes, one annoying thing is that you specifically need Automake 1.11.
Peter
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-devel" gro
>
> So, sage will keep reporting all failed build attempts that have ever
> happened in the past and that have not been followed by a successful
> build of (a more recent version of) the same package.
>
Yeah, I was wondering about that too.
--
You received this message because you are subsc
On 2014-12-19, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
> On 2014-12-19, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
>> In the thread
>> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/sage-support/0eDV-fbXXyE
>> somebody on 32-bit x86 Debian Linux couldn't compile Sage due to an
>> outdated assembler not supporting the "rep ret" instruction w
Hi!
On 2014-12-19, Simon King wrote:
> So, "make" will report *all* errors that have ever been recorded in the
> install log? Not a good solution, I think.
Note that deleting install.log has not been enough to remove the
warning. Apparently it is needed to remove logs/pkgs/... to fix it.
So, sa
Hi Peter,
On 2014-12-19, Simon King wrote:
> On 2014-12-19, Peter Bruin wrote:
>> The build failure should be fixed by http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/17525
>
> Thank you! For now, I attempted to fix the problem by installing automake,
> since the ticket says that the build fails if automake is
Hi Jeroen,
On 2014-12-19, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
> On 2014-12-19 12:54, Simon King wrote:
>> 1. even though building the spkg failed, the build process was
>> continued.
> Are you sure? Keep in mind that, for parallel builds, other packages
> which were being built are still continued. Imagine th
Hi Peter,
On 2014-12-19, Peter Bruin wrote:
> The build failure should be fixed by http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/17525
Thank you! For now, I attempted to fix the problem by installing automake,
since the ticket says that the build fails if automake is missing.
Best regards,
Simon
--
You re
The build failure should be fixed by http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/17525
Peter
Op vrijdag 19 december 2014 12:54:37 UTC+1 schreef Simon King:
>
> Hi!
>
> With the latest develop, "make start" fails to build maxima. The log is
> at
> http://sage.math.washington.edu/home/SimonKing/logs/maxima
On 2014-12-19 12:54, Simon King wrote:
1. even though building the spkg failed, the build process was
continued.
Are you sure? Keep in mind that, for parallel builds, other packages
which were being built are still continued. Imagine that you are
installing Maxima and R in parallel. When Maxima
Hi!
With the latest develop, "make start" fails to build maxima. The log is
at
http://sage.math.washington.edu/home/SimonKing/logs/maxima-5.35.1.p0.log
Two things are very strange:
1. even though building the spkg failed, the build process was
continued. And Sage even starts! And does not crash
This is http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/15348
--
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 post to this group, send
The bug doesn't seem to be in division:
sage: Zi. = ZZ.extension(x^2+1)
sage: i
1
sage: 123+456*i
579
Bruno
2014-12-19 12:14 GMT+01:00 John Cremona :
>
> While preparing examples with Gaussian Integers for an undergraduate
> course I discovered this terrible bug:
>
> sage: Zi. = ZZ.extension(x
While preparing examples with Gaussian Integers for an undergraduate
course I discovered this terrible bug:
sage: Zi. = ZZ.extension(x^2+1)
sage: (123+456*i)/3
193
I note that the type of Zi here is Order in Number Field in i with
defining polynomial x^2 + 1 (not "maximal order" which might be th
On Friday, December 19, 2014 10:25:26 AM UTC+1, John Cremona wrote:
>
> It's quite possible that both of those were written by me, since I did
> write code which had to distinguish between real and complex places. The
> number of different "real fields" which people might use is rather large,
>
On 2014-12-19, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
> In the thread
> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/sage-support/0eDV-fbXXyE
> somebody on 32-bit x86 Debian Linux couldn't compile Sage due to an
> outdated assembler not supporting the "rep ret" instruction which our
> GCC-4.9.2 generates.
>
> Accordi
On Thursday, December 18, 2014 12:47:31 PM UTC, martin@gmx.net wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, December 16, 2014 11:14:35 PM UTC+1, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
>>
>> > However, I wonder if there is a more elegant solution: is
>> > there currently a way to determine whether a given Parent class
>>
In the thread
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/sage-support/0eDV-fbXXyE
somebody on 32-bit x86 Debian Linux couldn't compile Sage due to an
outdated assembler not supporting the "rep ret" instruction which our
GCC-4.9.2 generates.
According to
https://sourceware.org/git/gitweb.cgi?p=bin
26 matches
Mail list logo
