On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 9:33 PM, rjf wrote:
> So it seems that people are being encouraged (coerced?) into
> delivering and debugging and using a (probably inferior) Maxima by the
> requirements of he-who-must-not-be-named.
Please post future messages flaming me to sage-flame where they belong:
Regarding shipping 2 lisps:
I thought Sage already knew how to ship a kit for CLISP, because that
is what Sage was using for Maxima a year ago.
So the Sage project is already building the second lisp from scratch
now, voluntarily. ECL.
But you don't really have to generally ship 2 lisps, it see
On 11 Aug, 22:50, William Stein wrote:
>
> It's actually interesting to summarize, the specific constraints I am aware
> of:
>
> 1. A major government agency -- we can't use Sage unless you
> provide a version that contains no binary components and that builds
> from source using the latest
On 2009-Aug-11 12:42:41 -0700, Harald Schilly wrote:
>My personal guess is that they want to be able to audit the software
>by looking at the source code. That's not possible if one of the
>components is or depends on binary code, where something could be
>hidden.
This is probably an opportune ti
On Aug 11, 2009, at 4:08 PM, nrbruin wrote:
>
> On Aug 11, 2:50 pm, William Stein wrote:
>
> [snip]
>>1. A major government agency -- we can't use Sage unless you
>> provide a version that contains no binary components and that builds
>> from source using the latest released version of GCC.
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 4:08 PM, nrbruin wrote:
>
> On Aug 11, 2:50 pm, William Stein wrote:
>
> [snip]
>> 1. A major government agency -- we can't use Sage unless you
>> provide a version that contains no binary components and that builds
>> from source using the latest released version of GC
On Aug 11, 2:50 pm, William Stein wrote:
[snip]
> 1. A major government agency -- we can't use Sage unless you
> provide a version that contains no binary components and that builds
> from source using the latest released version of GCC.
[snip]
It puzzled me a bit how SBCL could be ported an
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 9:19 AM, rjf wrote
> Continuing off topic, at least given the subject line...
> Since so many pieces of code are currently part of Sage, it seems
> prudent to tell those developers what the constraints are, or else
> they may suddenly find themselves excluded from Sage.
>
On Aug 11, 6:19 pm, rjf wrote:
> Or worse, they may be included in Sage and jeopardize uh, the security
> of the USA.
I'm sure the security of USA does not depend on Sage -- but if it
does, it would be the #1 selling argument I would put on the
homepage :)
My personal guess is that they want to
On Aug 10, 10:21 pm, William Stein wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 10:09 PM, rjf wrote:
>
> > On Aug 10, 2:00 pm, William Stein wrote:
> > > On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 12:51 PM, rjf wrote:
>
> > > > (RJF) Could you perhaps quote for us the DoD requirements? (and who
> > in DoD
> > > > requir
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 10:09 PM, rjf wrote:
>
>
>
> On Aug 10, 2:00 pm, William Stein wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 12:51 PM, rjf wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > (RJF) Could you perhaps quote for us the DoD requirements? (and who
> in DoD
> > > requires them).
> >
> >(William) No, I definitel
On Aug 10, 2:00 pm, William Stein wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 12:51 PM, rjf wrote:
>
>
>
> > (RJF) Could you perhaps quote for us the DoD requirements? (and who in DoD
> > requires them).
>
>(William) No, I definitely can't. Sorry I can't go into any further details.
>
>
Fascinating
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 12:51 PM, rjf wrote:
>
>
>
> On Aug 9, 11:15 pm, William Stein wrote:
> .
> >
> > ECL is massively better than CLISP, and is also the *only* other lisp
> that
> > is currently supported and builds 100% from source code. Both CMUCL and
> > SBCL are immediately ruled
On Aug 9, 11:15 pm, William Stein wrote:
.
>
> ECL is massively better than CLISP, and is also the *only* other lisp that
> is currently supported and builds 100% from source code. Both CMUCL and
> SBCL are immediately ruled out just because of that reason. This is one of
> the DoD requi
Dr. David Kirkby wrote:
> I've built Sage on a sun4u SPARC machine, using Maxima 5.19.0 and ECL 9.8.1
>
> Sage fails about 15 tests, one of which is below. I computed the result
> in Mathematica too, and find the result on the SPARC does differ from
> what Sage expects, and the result Sage expe
15 matches
Mail list logo
