On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 10:37 AM, mabshoff wrote:
> I have the desire to fix the dependency problem. i.e. each spkg should
> describe its dependencies and we should then use a little script to
> turn that into a dependency makefile. The main problem to do this are
> at the moment:
>
> (a) we nee
On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 11:01 AM, Serge A. Salamanka wrote:
>
>> For Kevin: the aim of SPD is to make it easy to create all in one
>> packages with just the stuff that we need (e.g. packages that are
>> currently in SPD, like scipy, numpy, notebook and then bunch of custom
>> libraries, that don'
> For Kevin: the aim of SPD is to make it easy to create all in one
> packages with just the stuff that we need (e.g. packages that are
> currently in SPD, like scipy, numpy, notebook and then bunch of custom
> libraries, that don't even have a spkg yet). And be compatible with
> Sage. That's it.
On May 18, 10:03 am, mabshoff wrote:
> On May 18, 9:50 am, Ondrej Certik wrote:
>
> > On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 9:29 AM, Brian Granger
> > wrote:
>
>
>
> > > But, if in the medium term (as Michael is hoping for), the Sage build
> > > system can be improved to the point where both Sage and SPD
On May 18, 9:50 am, Ondrej Certik wrote:
> On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 9:29 AM, Brian Granger
> wrote:
> > But, if in the medium term (as Michael is hoping for), the Sage build
> > system can be improved to the point where both Sage and SPD are using
> > the same infrastructure, that would hel
On May 18, 9:29 am, Brian Granger wrote:
> > Not right now. I'm sure Michael Abshoff would agree that we are way
> > too busy just dealing with Sage itself.
>
> OK, I am not surprised - Sage is an ambitious undertaking.
Well, world domination isn't something for weekend warriors ;)
> > Howev
> Are the custom libraries going to be .spkg as well? So, people using the
> full version of Sage can install them?
Yes, definitely.
Brian
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send
On May 18, 2009, at 12:50 PM, Ondrej Certik wrote:
>
> For Kevin: the aim of SPD is to make it easy to create all in one
> packages with just the stuff that we need (e.g. packages that are
> currently in SPD, like scipy, numpy, notebook and then bunch of custom
> libraries, that don't even have
On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 9:29 AM, Brian Granger wrote:
>
>> Not right now. I'm sure Michael Abshoff would agree that we are way
>> too busy just dealing with Sage itself.
>
> OK, I am not surprised - Sage is an ambitious undertaking.
>
>> However, note that there are two versions *right now* -- S
> Not right now. I'm sure Michael Abshoff would agree that we are way
> too busy just dealing with Sage itself.
OK, I am not surprised - Sage is an ambitious undertaking.
> However, note that there are two versions *right now* -- Sage and SPD
> -- and that this is not in any way increasing my w
> Yep, I know you need a trac account and I haven't gotten around to it.
> I discussed the patches with Ondrej yesterday in IRC and I would
> prefer if you posted them here since last time Ondrej found bugs in
> Sage's scripts it turned out mostly to be bugs in the way Ondrej used
> them.
I don't
On May 18, 9:08 am, William Stein wrote:
> On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 8:35 AM, Brian Granger
> wrote:
>
> > From a development perspective, it makes no sense to have two separate
> > projects (Sage/SPD). In working on SPD, I have already run into small
> > bugs in Sage's infrastructure. Curren
On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 8:35 AM, Brian Granger wrote:
>
> From a development perspective, it makes no sense to have two separate
> projects (Sage/SPD). In working on SPD, I have already run into small
> bugs in Sage's infrastructure. Currently, we have to fix such things
> in both SPD and Sage
>From a development perspective, it makes no sense to have two separate
projects (Sage/SPD). In working on SPD, I have already run into small
bugs in Sage's infrastructure. Currently, we have to fix such things
in both SPD and Sage and manage the respective tickets/patches for
both projects. Th
On 18 May 2009, at 09:40, mabshoff wrote:
> On May 18, 6:37 am, mabshoff wrote:
>> On May 18, 6:17 am, Kevin Horton wrote:
>>
>>> On 18 May 2009, at 02:02, William Stein wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Will packages created for SPD be usable as-is in Sage, or will they
>>> need to be tweaked in some way b
On May 18, 6:37 am, mabshoff wrote:
> On May 18, 6:17 am, Kevin Horton wrote:
>
> > On 18 May 2009, at 02:02, William Stein wrote:
>
>
>
> > Will packages created for SPD be usable as-is in Sage, or will they
> > need to be tweaked in some way before they can be used with Sage?
I guess the
On May 18, 6:17 am, Kevin Horton wrote:
> On 18 May 2009, at 02:02, William Stein wrote:
> Will packages created for SPD be usable as-is in Sage, or will they
> need to be tweaked in some way before they can be used with Sage?
Yes.
> Will there be some sort of automatic installation of
On 18 May 2009, at 02:02, William Stein wrote:
> On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 10:05 PM, Marshall Hampton > wrote:
>>
>> On May 17, 11:13 pm, Ondrej Certik wrote:
>> * at the very end of the presentation there was a discussion about
>> numeric stuff. There are tons of computational programs in lots o
On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 1:00 AM, William Stein wrote:
>
> On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 11:47 PM, Ondrej Certik wrote:
[...]
>> So I guess it's a question of the right balance between features and size.
>>
>> Ondrej
>>=
>
> At University of Washington, when one downloads the local
> site-licensed bina
On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 11:47 PM, Ondrej Certik wrote:
>
> On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 10:05 PM, Marshall Hampton
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On May 17, 11:13 pm, Ondrej Certik wrote:
>> * at the very end of the presentation there was a discussion about
>> numeric stuff. There are tons of computational p
On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 10:05 PM, Marshall Hampton wrote:
>
>
>
> On May 17, 11:13 pm, Ondrej Certik wrote:
> * at the very end of the presentation there was a discussion about
> numeric stuff. There are tons of computational programs in lots of
> fields (atomic physics, quantum field theory, el
On May 18, 2009, at 2:02 AM, William Stein wrote:
>
> I agree. We can do anything if we have enough energy, organization,
> resources, and work hard enough.
>
> Having the SPD project build up infrastructure in the numerical
> direction is a great way to organize ourselves in order to accompli
On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 10:05 PM, Marshall Hampton wrote:
>
>
>
> On May 17, 11:13 pm, Ondrej Certik wrote:
> * at the very end of the presentation there was a discussion about
> numeric stuff. There are tons of computational programs in lots of
> fields (atomic physics, quantum field theory, el
On May 17, 11:13 pm, Ondrej Certik wrote:
* at the very end of the presentation there was a discussion about
numeric stuff. There are tons of computational programs in lots of
fields (atomic physics, quantum field theory, electromagnetics,
electronic structure calculations, fluid dynamics, atmo
On May 18, 2009, at 12:13 AM, Ondrej Certik wrote:
>
>
> * at the very end of the presentation there was a discussion about
> numeric stuff. There are tons of computational programs in lots of
> fields (atomic physics, quantum field theory, electromagnetics,
> electronic structure calculations,
25 matches
Mail list logo
