On Friday 19 April 2024 at 20:08:51 UTC+2 Matthias Koeppe wrote:
On Friday, April 19, 2024 at 5:08:02 AM UTC-7 Martin R wrote:
2.) If this is about dependencies on other software, why aren't the
distributions named after these dependencies?
Martin, I have answered this already when you asked
On Friday, April 19, 2024 at 5:08:02 AM UTC-7 Martin R wrote:
2.) If this is about dependencies on other software, why aren't the
distributions named after these dependencies?
Martin, I have answered this already when you asked it in the PR: Some are.
Note that the description of the PR where
On Fri, 2024-04-19 at 09:46 -0700, Matthias Koeppe wrote:
>
> Michael, note that in my message I asked for a vote on that dependency
> https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36676.
>
Even if 36676 gets approval, 36964 must be reverted. It was not
meaningfully voted upon.
--
You received this m
On Friday, April 19, 2024 at 5:08:02 AM UTC-7 Martin R wrote:
*> What is the modularization project?* The Sage developer community has
long been aware of the severe problems that the monolithic design of Sage
has brought. See in particular the lively 2016 sage-devel thread "How we
develop Sage"
On Friday, April 19, 2024 at 3:47:38 AM UTC-7 Michael Orlitzky wrote:
On 2024-04-18 14:18:37, Matthias Koeppe wrote:
> As an alternative to the proposal to back out the
> PR https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36964 whose *disputed dependency
> PR https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36676 w
Dear Matthias!
*> What is the modularization project?* The Sage developer community has
long been aware of the severe problems that the monolithic design of Sage
has brought. See in particular the lively 2016 sage-devel thread "How we
develop Sage" (https://groups.google.com/g/sage-devel/c/29nd
On 2024-04-18 16:04:43, Lorenz Panny wrote:
> >
> > It's also 214 software packages which might, for all we know, at any
> > time be hijacked by The Bad Guys to run arbitrarily malicious code on
> > every Sage user's machine.
> >
> > This is terrifying.
276 now
--
You received this message bec
@Dima, thanks, I know that though. Nevertheless, I now started from anew
(that is I removed the sage directory and git-cloned sage to make sure that
there are no remains causing trouble). After running configure, the script
suggests to `sudo pacman -S eclib fflas-ffpack linbox nauty singular`.
On 2024-04-18 14:18:37, Matthias Koeppe wrote:
> Dear all:
>
> As an alternative to the proposal to back out the
> PR https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36964 whose *disputed dependency
> PR https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36676 which had not reached the
> required 2:1 supermajority *o
On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 02:28:13AM -0700, 'Peter Mueller' via sage-devel wrote:
> I just figured out that the installation from source (even with the
> explicit configure option `--with-system-singular`) on an up to date arch
> linux machine ignores the installed singular (`pacman -Q singular` r
I just figured out that the installation from source (even with the
explicit configure option `--with-system-singular`) on an up to date arch
linux machine ignores the installed singular (`pacman -Q singular` returns
`singular 4.3.2.p16-1`). Not sure if it is a path problem that makes the
conf
+1 for merging #37796.
Volker, I would appreciate if you could say something about how #36964 was
merged. It would be useful to understand the process with merging this,
rather than guessing the intent. Additionally, I thought we didn't merge
things when the dependencies have not been merged (o
12 matches
Mail list logo
