http://ask.sagemath.org/question/34442/can-i-create-commercial-software-using-sagemath
I put: "ANSWER: It depends on what you mean by "commercial software".
ONE: If by "commercial software" you mean "closed source", then the
answer is no, you can't write and publicly distribute such software
lega
Hi,
On 16/08/16 09:07, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
On 2016-08-16 14:04, Erik Bray wrote:
Hi all,
Is there a make target for building/installing all *optional* packages
as well as the standard ones?
First of all: not every optional package should be installed. There are
packages like gmp and python
Hello,
On 16/08/16 17:48, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
On Tuesday, August 16, 2016 at 6:14:27 PM UTC+1, Simon King wrote:
>>
I made progress turning my optional old-style group cohomology spkg into
a new style package (called "modres", to be added to Sage at some point)
depending on another new-style
On Tuesday, August 16, 2016 at 6:14:27 PM UTC+1, Simon King wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> I made progress turning my optional old-style group cohomology spkg into
> a new style package (called "modres", to be added to Sage at some point)
> depending on another new-style package (called "meataxe", already
On Tuesday, August 16, 2016 at 2:07:43 PM UTC+2, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
>
> There might be others too, like gdb on OS X doesn't work.
>
gdb on OSX should work, the only issue is that Apple decided that only root
shall have sufficient permissions to use it (PTRACE)
--
You received this message b
Hi!
I made progress turning my optional old-style group cohomology spkg into
a new style package (called "modres", to be added to Sage at some point)
depending on another new-style package (called "meataxe", already part of
Sage), both being wrapped by an OptionalExtension in the Sage library.
Ale
On Tuesday, August 16, 2016 at 5:29:52 PM UTC+2, Luca De Feo wrote:
>
> > But if we want to migrate to using system libs why not let gd use
> whatever it wants!
>
> Well, in that case we should use system gd, shouldn't we?
>
Yes indeed.
And if we don't use the system one and build our own, let
> But if we want to migrate to using system libs why not let gd use whatever it
> wants!
Well, in that case we should use system gd, shouldn't we?
On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 4:35 PM, Luca De Feo wrote:
> After a system upgrade my built-from-source sage install started
> crashing with the log messa
On Tuesday, August 16, 2016 at 4:36:03 PM UTC+2, Luca De Feo wrote:
>
> After a system upgrade my built-from-source sage install started
> crashing with the log message
>
> ImportError: libvpx.so.3: cannot open shared object file: No such
> file or directory
>
> and indeed my system updat
After a system upgrade my built-from-source sage install started
crashing with the log message
ImportError: libvpx.so.3: cannot open shared object file: No such
file or directory
and indeed my system update updated libvpx from 3.x to 4.x, while I
can't find any trace of it in the sage/ folder
On 2016-08-16 14:04, Erik Bray wrote:
Hi all,
Is there a make target for building/installing all *optional* packages
as well as the standard ones?
First of all: not every optional package should be installed. There are
packages like gmp and python3 which should not mindlessly be installed.
Hi all,
Is there a make target for building/installing all *optional* packages
as well as the standard ones? There doesn't seem to be but I wanted
to make sure. How are optional packages tested normally? I could do
it with a few lines of shell but it seems to me there should be a
simpler way.
cc-ing sage-notebook
2016-08-14 17:01:04 UTC+2, Mike Zabrocki:
>
> Hi,
>
> I was trying to get a sage server running on a computer at work and I kept
> finding that it would not connect. I then started debugging and ran into
> further issues.
>
> When I execute the documentation
>
> http://do
Wanted to respond a bit more to what Leif wrote, but it got a little
off topic from the original thread hence the topic change).
Right now I don't want to delve into the lack of devel vs. stable
branches, etc. I completely agree on all that. I just wanted to
address a couple points you made abou
On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 5:43 PM, leif wrote:
> Johan S. H. Rosenkilde wrote:
>>> leif wrote:
>>> Well, depends on /what/ you write there...
>>>
>>> At least mentioning the different notions of skew polynomial evaluation
>>> (and that currently only one, and which, is implemented) shouldn't hurt.
>
15 matches
Mail list logo
