On 2015-02-23 11:05, John Cremona wrote:
It is rather hard to write all such
doctests to be invariant under such things, especially as doctests
also serve as examples for the reference manual, so you really do want
such an example which computes fundamental units *and displays them*
as a user wou
On 23 February 2015 at 09:23, Julien Puydt wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Le 18/02/2015 13:53, Julien Puydt a écrit :
>>
>> I'm having strange numerical behaviour with my experimental sage using
>> debian packages, with two failing doctests in the src/sage/libs/pari/
>> directory (both in gen.pyx) :
>>
>> Faile
Hi,
Le 18/02/2015 13:53, Julien Puydt a écrit :
I'm having strange numerical behaviour with my experimental sage using
debian packages, with two failing doctests in the src/sage/libs/pari/
directory (both in gen.pyx) :
Failed example:
(s*z)^5
Expected:
2.00 - 1.08420217248
Le 19/02/2015 22:15, Francois Bissey a écrit :
But some of us would like to be given some consideration.
+1
Snark on #sagemath
--
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,
> On 20/02/2015, at 06:54, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
>
> On 02/19/2015 11:24 AM, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
>> On 2015-02-19 16:55, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
>>> It's not incompatibility with Debian that's the problem. Having
>>> dependencies like "whatever was in the git repo at 11:00 on 2015-02-19
>>>
Le 18/02/2015 18:35, Jeroen Demeyer a écrit :
On 2015-02-18 17:59, Bruno Grenet wrote:
It would be nice for both Debian and Sage to have Sage
included in Debian.
Nice, yes, but not at any cost. There are advantages, but we should
also consider the disadvantages.
Just to put it simply, I've h
Le 19/02/2015 19:14, Bruno Grenet a écrit :
Le 18/02/2015 18:35, Jeroen Demeyer a écrit :
On 2015-02-18 17:59, Bruno Grenet wrote:
It would be nice for both Debian and Sage to have Sage
included in Debian.
Nice, yes, but not at any cost. There are advantages, but we should
also consider the
> On 19/02/2015, at 22:19, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
>
> On 2015-02-19 08:31, Marc Mezzarobba wrote:
>> On a perhaps related note, Sage used to be about "building the car",
>> didn't it?
> I would say it still is about "building the car". I think this refers to
> using dependencies where possible.
Le 18/02/2015 19:48, Jeroen Demeyer a écrit :
On 2015-02-18 19:35, Julien Puydt wrote:
Was such a backport really necessary ?
Well, you could always roll back #14894, but that's not exactly progress.
Couldn't the same have been
achieved using what's already available ?
I'm pretty sure the
On 2015-02-18 19:35, Julien Puydt wrote:
Was such a backport really necessary ?
Well, you could always roll back #14894, but that's not exactly progress.
Couldn't the same have been
achieved using what's already available ?
I'm pretty sure the answer is "no". The upstream patch was actually
r
Le 18/02/2015 19:24, Jeroen Demeyer a écrit :
On 2015-02-18 18:59, Julien Puydt wrote:
When I asked Bill about the cb_pari_err_handle patch, he asked why sage
wasn't using the standard pari error trapping mechanism.
That patch is a pure backport from upstream git. So what Sage uses is a
PARI
2015-02-18 19:24 UTC+01:00, Jeroen Demeyer :
> On 2015-02-18 18:59, Julien Puydt wrote:
>> When I asked Bill about the cb_pari_err_handle patch, he asked why sage
>> wasn't using the standard pari error trapping mechanism.
> That patch is a pure backport from upstream git. So what Sage uses is a
>
On 2015-02-18 18:59, Julien Puydt wrote:
When I asked Bill about the cb_pari_err_handle patch, he asked why sage
wasn't using the standard pari error trapping mechanism.
That patch is a pure backport from upstream git. So what Sage uses is a
PARI error handling mechanism which is standard in PAR
Le 18/02/2015 18:42, Jeroen Demeyer a écrit :
On 2015-02-18 18:04, Julien Puydt wrote:
In fact, whenever sage-the-distribution pretends to package a software
"foo" version "3.14", but patches it left and right, breaking both the
API and the ABI, that is a problem not only for debian, but for all
On 2015-02-18 18:04, Julien Puydt wrote:
In fact, whenever sage-the-distribution pretends to package a software
"foo" version "3.14", but patches it left and right, breaking both the
API and the ABI, that is a problem not only for debian, but for all
serious distributions...
But what's the solut
On 2015-02-18 17:59, Bruno Grenet wrote:
It would be nice for both Debian and Sage to have Sage
included in Debian.
Nice, yes, but not at any cost. There are advantages, but we should also
consider the disadvantages.
The fact that Sage could only use stable, unpatched versions of packages
wou
Le 18/02/2015 18:21, Volker Braun a écrit :
On Wednesday, February 18, 2015 at 5:28:27 PM UTC+1, vdelecroix wrote:
I mean that we will not release a Sage version that would not support
debian packaging.
-1 to delaying a Sage version for $DISTRO to catch up.
Agreed!
Snark on #sagemath
-
Le 18/02/2015 17:59, Bruno Grenet a écrit :
Le 18/02/2015 17:44, Jeroen Demeyer a écrit :
On 2015-02-18 17:22, Vincent Delecroix wrote:
Julien built an almost working prototype for a native sage on debian.
This implies out of the box installation for a lot of users (and
potentially much cleaner
On Wednesday, February 18, 2015 at 5:28:27 PM UTC+1, vdelecroix wrote:
>
> I mean that we will not release a Sage version that would not support
> debian packaging.
-1 to delaying a Sage version for $DISTRO to catch up.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Gro
Le 18/02/2015 17:19, Jeroen Demeyer a écrit :
On 2015-02-18 15:51, Julien Puydt wrote:
Debian has pari 2.7.2 (packaged by Bill Allombert himself, so I guess he
knows what he's doing), while sage has 2.7.1.
How do you deal with the patches to PARI that Sage applies? I don't
think that Sage even
Le 18/02/2015 17:44, Jeroen Demeyer a écrit :
On 2015-02-18 17:22, Vincent Delecroix wrote:
Julien built an almost working prototype for a native sage on debian.
This implies out of the box installation for a lot of users (and
potentially much cleaner integration of third party softwares). The
Hi,
Le 18/02/2015 17:06, Jeroen Demeyer a écrit :
On 2015-02-18 16:46, Julien Puydt wrote:
Le 18/02/2015 15:57, Jeroen Demeyer a écrit :
On 2015-02-18 15:51, Julien Puydt wrote:
Is pari's output changing that often, that failing doctests could have
so little meaning?
Yes.
Then perhaps it's
On 2015-02-18 17:22, Vincent Delecroix wrote:
Julien built an almost working prototype for a native sage on debian.
This implies out of the box installation for a lot of users (and
potentially much cleaner integration of third party softwares). The
real question is:
does the Sage community
2015-02-18 17:25 UTC+01:00, William Stein :
> On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 11:22 AM, Vincent Delecroix
> <20100.delecr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 2015-02-18 17:06 UTC+01:00, Jeroen Demeyer :
>>> On 2015-02-18 16:46, Julien Puydt wrote:
Le 18/02/2015 15:57, Jeroen Demeyer a écrit :
> On 2015-02-18
On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 11:22 AM, Vincent Delecroix
<20100.delecr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2015-02-18 17:06 UTC+01:00, Jeroen Demeyer :
>> On 2015-02-18 16:46, Julien Puydt wrote:
>>> Le 18/02/2015 15:57, Jeroen Demeyer a écrit :
On 2015-02-18 15:51, Julien Puydt wrote:
> Is pari's output ch
2015-02-18 17:06 UTC+01:00, Jeroen Demeyer :
> On 2015-02-18 16:46, Julien Puydt wrote:
>> Le 18/02/2015 15:57, Jeroen Demeyer a écrit :
>>> On 2015-02-18 15:51, Julien Puydt wrote:
Is pari's output changing that often, that failing doctests could have
so little meaning?
>>> Yes.
>>
>> Th
On 2015-02-18 15:51, Julien Puydt wrote:
Debian has pari 2.7.2 (packaged by Bill Allombert himself, so I guess he
knows what he's doing), while sage has 2.7.1.
How do you deal with the patches to PARI that Sage applies? I don't
think that Sage even compiles with vanilla PARI 2.7.x.
--
You rece
On 2015-02-18 16:46, Julien Puydt wrote:
Le 18/02/2015 15:57, Jeroen Demeyer a écrit :
On 2015-02-18 15:51, Julien Puydt wrote:
Is pari's output changing that often, that failing doctests could have
so little meaning?
Yes.
Then perhaps it's a good idea to replace those two results (32-bit an
Le 18/02/2015 15:57, Jeroen Demeyer a écrit :
On 2015-02-18 15:51, Julien Puydt wrote:
Is pari's output changing that often, that failing doctests could have
so little meaning?
Yes.
Then perhaps it's a good idea to replace those two results (32-bit and
64-bit) by a single "tol" one?
Snark
On 2015-02-18 15:51, Julien Puydt wrote:
Is pari's output changing that often, that failing doctests could have
so little meaning?
Yes.
--
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
Hi,
Le 18/02/2015 15:21, Jeroen Demeyer a écrit :
On 2015-02-18 13:53, Julien Puydt wrote:
Hi,
I'm having strange numerical behaviour with my experimental sage using
debian packages
Which versions of Sage and PARI do you use? I guess that's the difference.
Debian has pari 2.7.2 (packaged b
On 2015-02-18 13:53, Julien Puydt wrote:
Hi,
I'm having strange numerical behaviour with my experimental sage using
debian packages
Which versions of Sage and PARI do you use? I guess that's the difference.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-dev
Hi,
I'm having strange numerical behaviour with my experimental sage using
debian packages, with two failing doctests in the src/sage/libs/pari/
directory (both in gen.pyx) :
Failed example:
(s*z)^5
Expected:
2.00 - 1.08420217248550 E-19*I
Got:
2.00 + 0.E-1
33 matches
Mail list logo
