Re: [sage-devel] Re: [sage-release] Re: Sage 9.5 released

An update: The latest version of the installation manual (from https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/33655) is available here: https://7896a56df78170d5bab0f306d1a7230986a4206a--sagemath-tobias.netlify.app/installation/index.html Thanks to everyone for their input. On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 12:4

Re: [sage-devel] [sage-release] Re: Sage 9.5 released

On Tue, 2022-04-26 at 16:41 -0700, Matthias Koeppe wrote: > > The same is also standard practice in the Python world. In modern Python > packaging, there is no such thing as a build-time optional dependency. The > build environment is fully specified in pyproject.toml. Additional > functionalit

[sage-devel] We need 1237 more functions to get to 99% coverage.

~/sage-9.6/git/rc2$ sage.mod/sage --coverageall __init__.py: 100.0% (1 of 1) algebras/affine_nil_temperley_lieb.py: 100.0% (11 of 11) algebras/algebra.py: 100.0% (1 of 1) algebras/askey_wilson.py: 100.0% (21 of 21) algebras/associated_graded.py: 100.0% (9 of 9) algebras/cellular_basis.py: 100.0% (9

[sage-devel] download-for-sdist: command not found

Cloning into '/home/hph/sage-9.6/git/rc2/sage.mod/tmp/sage-9.6.rc2'... done. Updating files: 100% (9399/9399), done. Enumerating objects: 841207, done. Counting objects: 100% (841207/841207), done. Delta compression using up to 8 threads Compressing objects: 100% (801365/801365), done. Writing obje

Re: [sage-devel] [sage-release] Re: Sage 9.5 released

On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 4:07:00 PM UTC-7 François Bissey wrote: > From what I can see on debian, they try to build for pretty much any > options they have available, and those runtime dependencies have to be > installed and be included in the dependency tree for that distribution’s > bina

Re: [sage-devel] Re: [sage-release] Re: Sage 9.5 released

On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 5:22:28 AM UTC-7 seb@gmail.com wrote: > I think someone visiting our web-page the first time will rather push the > *big > blue button Download 9.5* instead of going to the download menu > especially if he wants to be sure to get the current release. This launc

Re: [sage-devel] [sage-release] Re: Sage 9.5 released

Well binary packages are not so well known in Gentoo. But in any case, your argument about source distribution applies pretty much to all distro package maintainers. At some point they have to choose which options they will enable in the build, binary or otherwise, they distribute. >From what I

Re: [sage-devel] Re: [sage-release] Re: Sage 9.5 released

On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 3:53:46 PM UTC-7 Michael Orlitzky wrote: > By the same reasoning, Gentoo isn't source-based, > because you have the option of installing pre-built binary packages > with the default set of options. > Oh, I didn't know. Haven't met a Gentoo user, only Gentoo develop

Re: [sage-devel] Re: [sage-release] Re: Sage 9.5 released

On Tue, 2022-04-26 at 15:12 -0700, Matthias Koeppe wrote: > On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 2:07:40 PM UTC-7 Michael Orlitzky wrote: > > > On Tue, 2022-04-26 at 12:20 -0700, Matthias Koeppe wrote: > > > This makes no sense on any distribution other than build-from-source > > > distributions like g

[sage-devel] sage --advanced

Dear All, Please advise which of the "sage --advanced" should be used to test "Refactor&Source": 1. After git checkout 2. After 'make configure' 3. After './configure' 4. After 'make' Some practical use case scenario, where applicable, is much appreciated. For your convenience, th

[sage-devel] make ptestlong: more than 8 cores?

It seems to me that make ptestlong does not use more than 8 cores, even if MAKE="make -j20" and there are 10 cores available. This is not the case for make, where all 10 cores are at 100% most of the time. Am I missing something? Guillermo -- You received this message because you are subscribe

Re: [sage-devel] Re: [sage-release] Re: Sage 9.5 released

On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 2:07:40 PM UTC-7 Michael Orlitzky wrote: > On Tue, 2022-04-26 at 12:20 -0700, Matthias Koeppe wrote: > > This makes no sense on any distribution other than build-from-source > > distributions like gentoo. > > Homebrew, Conda, and sage itself are all source-based.

Re: [sage-devel] Build-alert!

Done rc2; no problems Although I haven't done the long test; perhaps tonight. Looking forward to the release :) On 4/26/22 07:35, Dima Pasechnik wrote: Thanks - in fact, we're very close to releasing 9.6. Testing release candidates, a.k.a. 'rc' (or betas, whether is fresher) is much more importa

Re: [sage-devel] Re: [sage-release] Re: Sage 9.5 released

On Tue, 2022-04-26 at 12:20 -0700, Matthias Koeppe wrote: > > This makes no sense on any distribution other than build-from-source > distributions like gentoo. > Homebrew, Conda, and sage itself are all source-based. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Group

Re: [sage-devel] Re: [sage-release] Re: Sage 9.5 released

On Friday, April 22, 2022 at 10:53:50 AM UTC-7 Matthias Koeppe wrote: > steer users to using conda-forge. > An update: Now https://www.sagemath.org/ also has a menu item "Download | Linux/macOS binaries (conda-forge)

Re: [sage-devel] Re: [sage-release] Re: Sage 9.5 released

On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 11:34:50 AM UTC-7 Michael Orlitzky wrote: > This generally makes packaging harder if the optional thing affects the > existing sage installation. Distribution packages should know all of > their dependencies at install-time. > This makes no sense on any distributio

Re: [sage-devel] Re: [sage-release] Re: Sage 9.5 released

On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 5:15:51 AM UTC-7 kcrisman wrote: > 4. A link to some Windows doc on what WSL is would probably be pretty > helpful, since presumably a lot of Windows users who like doing math have > never heard of it. > Thanks, I've added a bit (adapting from something that was al

Re: [sage-devel] Re: [sage-release] Re: Sage 9.5 released

On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 5:15:51 AM UTC-7 kcrisman wrote: > Below a few minor notes about the sagemath-tobias link [...] > > 1. Is it possible to have a short bullet list for the three/four options > * Linux > * Mac > * Windoze > * Cloud > that link to those, immediately below "Where would yo

Re: [sage-devel] Re: [sage-release] Re: Sage 9.5 released

On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 11:46:57 AM UTC-7 Thierry (sage-googlesucks@xxx) wrote: > If setting up a new build infrastructure solves an actual issue It doesn't. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this grou

Re: [sage-devel] Re: [sage-release] Re: Sage 9.5 released

On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 5:22:28 AM UTC-7 seb@gmail.com wrote: > I agree, we should update our documentation to warn people about wildly > outdated distribution packages on outdated OS distributions, and steer > users to using conda-forge. > > I would have expected that the *no root acc

Re: [sage-devel] Re: [sage-release] Re: Sage 9.5 released

On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 11:32:03AM -0700, Matthias Koeppe wrote: > On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 11:25:39 AM UTC-7 Thierry > (sage-googlesucks@xxx) wrote: > > > On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 11:19:52AM -0700, Matthias Koeppe wrote: > > > Marc Culler's macOS binary packaging gets it right -- he just bu

Re: [sage-devel] Re: [sage-release] Re: Sage 9.5 released

Note that we already generate this "apt-get install" line for the documentation (see https://doc.sagemath.org/html/en/installation/source.html#linux-recommended-installation). Unfortunately the writing in this section of the manual is not very good and would need help to be improved. This could

Re: [sage-devel] Re: [sage-release] Re: Sage 9.5 released

On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 10:14:57 AM UTC-7 Eric Gourgoulhon wrote: > Le mardi 26 avril 2022 à 14:22:28 UTC+2, seb@gmail.com a écrit : > >> several Linux distributions carry reasonably up to date binary Sage >> installations (and these can be installed on various VMs, e.g. on Windows’ >>

Re: [sage-devel] Re: [sage-release] Re: Sage 9.5 released

On Tue, 2022-04-26 at 10:26 -0700, Nils Bruin wrote: > > If packaging is going to play a more important role in the distribution of > sage, I think we need to make a distinction between build-time optional > packages and packages that can be installed after sage has been built. And > ideally we

Re: [sage-devel] Re: [sage-release] Re: Sage 9.5 released

On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 11:25:39 AM UTC-7 Thierry (sage-googlesucks@xxx) wrote: > On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 11:19:52AM -0700, Matthias Koeppe wrote: > > Marc Culler's macOS binary packaging gets it right -- he just builds all > > optional packages that happen to build without errors and inc

Re: [sage-devel] Re: [sage-release] Re: Sage 9.5 released

On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 5:15:51 AM UTC-7 kcrisman wrote: > 4. A link to some Windows doc on what WSL is would probably be pretty > helpful, since presumably a lot of Windows users who like doing math have > never heard of it. > We have a bunch of tickets that propose to improve the WSL do

Re: [sage-devel] Re: [sage-release] Re: Sage 9.5 released

On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 11:19:52AM -0700, Matthias Koeppe wrote: > On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 10:26:59 AM UTC-7 Nils Bruin wrote: > > > If we're going to allow for/promote packaging as an easy way to get access > > to sage, I think we need to reevaluate how we provide optional packages as > >

Re: [sage-devel] Re: [sage-release] Re: Sage 9.5 released

On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 10:26:59 AM UTC-7 Nils Bruin wrote: > If we're going to allow for/promote packaging as an easy way to get access > to sage, I think we need to reevaluate how we provide optional packages as > well. Currently, our optional packages are basically *build time* optional

Re: [sage-devel] Re: [sage-release] Re: Sage 9.5 released

Hi, a few years ago, i used to build 16 binaries in a row at each release for various Debian and Ubuntu versions and architectures. Then, i stopped because Jan Groenwald dedicated some machines at AIMS to build binaries. If necessary, i could try to setup such a builder for a bunch of binaries for

Re: [sage-devel] Re: [sage-release] Re: Sage 9.5 released

If we're going to allow for/promote packaging as an easy way to get access to sage, I think we need to reevaluate how we provide optional packages as well. Currently, our optional packages are basically *build time* optional (their inclusion or exclusion can lead to changes how other modules op

Re: [sage-devel] Re: [sage-release] Re: Sage 9.5 released

Hi, First of all many thanks to all of you who are improving the installation instructions! Le mardi 26 avril 2022 à 14:22:28 UTC+2, seb@gmail.com a écrit : > several Linux distributions carry reasonably up to date binary Sage > installations (and these can be installed on various VMs, e.g

[sage-devel] build gets totally stuck after a broken download

Building the latest rc. After a failure (network issues) to get an tarball for an spkg, I am now seeing the following quite annoying bug: $ make numpy # (or just make) ... make[1]: Entering directory '/home/scratch/scratch2/dimpase/sage/sage/build/make' make --no-print-directory numpy-SAGE_VENV-n

Re: [sage-devel] Re: [sage-release] Re: Sage 9.5 released

several Linux distributions carry reasonably up to date binary Sage installations (and these can be installed on various VMs, e.g. on Windows’ WSL, ChromeOS’ Crostini, etc) For example current LinuxMint and WSL are both on Ubuntu 20.04 LTS which gives you Sage 9.0 (as in the example I’ve ment

Re: [sage-devel] Re: [sage-release] Re: Sage 9.5 released

If we're moving away from providing binaries, then this is a good way to go, well organized. Below a few minor notes about the sagemath-tobias link, I hope they are helpful. My apologies in advance for any bike shedding, though I tried to be pretty concrete. 1. Is it possible to have a short

Re: [sage-devel] Build-alert!

Thanks - in fact, we're very close to releasing 9.6. Testing release candidates, a.k.a. 'rc' (or betas, whether is fresher) is much more important. See https://www.sagemath.org/download-latest.html (or you can clone from GitHub: https://github.com/sagemath/sage) Chances are that what you see in 9.

[sage-devel] Build-alert!

Hi, On a fresh download/configure/make for 9.5; I got a message; to send error to sage-devel@googlegroups.com It actually seemed to trundle on okay. build-deve.log   is terminal clip. of the make request The others are what  I think are relevant/asked for. ./sage ./sage --notebook seem to run