On Jun 19, 12:57 am, "John Cremona" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2008/6/18 mabshoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 18, 1:02 am, "John Cremona" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Hi John,
>
> >> OK, you were right: atlas took 115m37s, i.e. about 2hrs .
>
> > That is pretty much what I suspec
2008/6/18 mabshoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> On Jun 18, 1:02 am, "John Cremona" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi John,
>
>> OK, you were right: atlas took 115m37s, i.e. about 2hrs .
>
> That is pretty much what I suspected.
Anything I can do to speed this up in future? Otherwise I'll be less
inc
>> I finished the MAC OSX 10.4 build of sage-3.0.3 and am ready to build
>> the binary but I cannot remember the command. I thought it was
>> make dist but the makefile doesn't contain such a stanza.
>>
>
>./sage -bdist 3.0.3-osx10.4-ppc
>
>and you find the result in dist/
I tried to upload the d
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 8:49 PM, root <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I finished the MAC OSX 10.4 build of sage-3.0.3 and am ready to build
> the binary but I cannot remember the command. I thought it was
> make dist but the makefile doesn't contain such a stanza.
>
./sage -bdist 3.0.3-osx10.4-ppc
I finished the MAC OSX 10.4 build of sage-3.0.3 and am ready to build
the binary but I cannot remember the command. I thought it was
make dist but the makefile doesn't contain such a stanza.
Tim
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send email to sage-deve
William Stein wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 10:50 AM, Jaap Spies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Thanks for this release. This is as much as a birthday present.
>>
>> All test passed!
>
> Indeed, I released sage-3.0.3 last night. There is no official announcement
> yet, but will be as soon as m
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 10:50 AM, Jaap Spies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Thanks for this release. This is as much as a birthday present.
>
> All test passed!
Indeed, I released sage-3.0.3 last night. There is no official announcement
yet, but will be as soon as mabshoff writes release notes.
On Jun 18, 1:02 am, "John Cremona" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi John,
> OK, you were right: atlas took 115m37s, i.e. about 2hrs .
That is pretty much what I suspected.
> When you say cache size, do you mean on the machine? The laptop has
> 2GB ram -- was supposed to have 4 but they forgot to
OK, you were right: atlas took 115m37s, i.e. about 2hrs .
When you say cache size, do you mean on the machine? The laptop has
2GB ram -- was supposed to have 4 but they forgot to install it and I
am expecting a guy to come by in the next couple of days to install
the extra. But maybe that is no
All tests passed for me on two Intel macs, running os x 10.4 and 10.5.
-M. Hampton
On Jun 17, 11:53 am, mabshoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jun 17, 9:22 am, "John Cremona" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Built 3.0.3.rc0 on here:
>
> Hi John,
>
> > Linux version 2.6.24-18-generic ([EMAIL PR
On Jun 17, 9:22 am, "John Cremona" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Built 3.0.3.rc0 on here:
Hi John,
> Linux version 2.6.24-18-generic ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) (gcc version 4.2.3
> (Ubuntu 4.2.3-2ubuntu7)) #1 SMP Wed May 28 20:27:26 UTC 2008
>
> and here:
>
> Linux version 2.6.18.8-0.3-default ([EMAIL
On Jun 16, 9:31 pm, "William Stein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am almost ok with releasing rc0. I saw only one problem with any
> doctests (I
> did not finish doctesting yet on itanium linux).
>
> There is *one* problem on our debian64 virtual machine on bsd. I guess you
> saw thi
Built 3.0.3.rc0 on here:
Linux version 2.6.24-18-generic ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) (gcc version 4.2.3
(Ubuntu 4.2.3-2ubuntu7)) #1 SMP Wed May 28 20:27:26 UTC 2008
and here:
Linux version 2.6.18.8-0.3-default ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) (gcc version
4.1.2 20061115 (prerelease) (SUSE Linux)) #1 SMP Tue Apr 17
mabshoff wrote:
> Hello folks,
>
> this is hopefully the final step toward 3.0.3. The release is much
> later than I had hoped, but it should be a solid one. There are a
> massive number of positively reviewed tickets in trac and many things
> are going on that will be done at Dev1, but those wil
Built fine and passed sage -testall on a phenom amd machine running hardy heron.
On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 3:00 PM, mabshoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hello folks,
>
> here we go with alpha2. Things have been slower than thought, but this
> ought to be it for the 3.0.3 release cycle since we
On Sat, Jun 7, 2008 at 8:59 AM, Dr. David Kirkby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
>
>
> On Jun 7, 3:12 am, mabshoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Oops, pressed return by accident.
> >
> > This is 3.0.3.alpha1 and it was never meant to see the light of day
> > since I wanted to use it internally to te
Built fine and all tests passed (hardy heon amd64, phenom processor).
On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 10:12 PM, mabshoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Oops, pressed return by accident.
>
> This is 3.0.3.alpha1 and it was never meant to see the light of day
> since I wanted to use it internally to test r
2008/6/7 mabshoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> Oops, pressed return by accident.
>
> This is 3.0.3.alpha1 and it was never meant to see the light of day
> since I wanted to use it internally to test rebuild on some boxen. Due
> to me chasing some other bugs and being busy in $REAL_LIFE alpha2
> didn't
On Jun 7, 3:12 am, mabshoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Oops, pressed return by accident.
>
> This is 3.0.3.alpha1 and it was never meant to see the light of day
> since I wanted to use it internally to test rebuild on some boxen. Due
> to me chasing some other bugs and being busy in $REAL_LIFE
Oops, pressed return by accident.
This is 3.0.3.alpha1 and it was never meant to see the light of day
since I wanted to use it internally to test rebuild on some boxen. Due
to me chasing some other bugs and being busy in $REAL_LIFE alpha2
didn't make it, i.e. the Cyclomic patch which I merged in
On Thursday 29 May 2008, Carl Witty wrote:
> cdef unsigned int low = gmp_urandomb_ui(rstate.gmp_state, 32)
> cdef unsigned int high = gmp_urandomb_ui(rstate.gmp_state, 32)
> cdef unsigned long long combined = ((high)<<32)|
> (low)
> values[j] = combined
Doh!
http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ti
On May 29, 9:33 am, "William Stein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> OSX PPC:
> The new matrix mod2 code is *all wrong* there. Endianess?
>
> sage -t devel/sage/sage/matrix/matrix_mod2_dense.pyx
> **
> File "/Users/was/build/sage-3.
On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 9:58 AM, Yi Qiang <...
>>
>>
>> Maybe we ought to raise the timeout?
>>
>>> Total time for all tests: 49.5 seconds
>>
>
> Can someone give me access to a fedora8 machine so I try to reproduce
> the bug? We should not need to raise the timeout for this particular
> test.
I
On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 9:44 AM, mabshoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> On May 29, 6:33 pm, "William Stein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 8:18 AM, John Cremona <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>> > 3.0.3.alpha0 built ok and all test passed!
>>
>> My 3.03.alpha0 bui
mabshoff wrote:
> Hello folks,
>
> this is Sage 3.0.3.alpha0. It looks like we we are continuing our
> somewhat slow development pace while waiting for the coercion
> rewrite to finish. Trac still has a staggering 75+ patches waiting
> for review, so if you can spare a little time it would be nic
On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 9:44 AM, mabshoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> On May 29, 6:33 pm, "William Stein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 8:18 AM, John Cremona <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>> > 3.0.3.alpha0 built ok and all test passed!
>>
>> My 3.03.alpha0 bui
On May 29, 6:33 pm, "William Stein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 8:18 AM, John Cremona <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > 3.0.3.alpha0 built ok and all test passed!
> Suse, Itanium: fails; can't build clisp
I forgot this one: I tested on that machine and upgrading to cli
> OSX PPC:
> The new matrix mod2 code is *all wrong* there. Endianess?
Yes, if those are all doctest failures then they are all related to random
numbers. So either I use the the randgen framework wrongly or there is a bug
in there.
Martin
> sage -t devel/sage/sage/matrix/matrix_mod2_dense.
On May 29, 6:33 pm, "William Stein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 8:18 AM, John Cremona <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
> > 3.0.3.alpha0 built ok and all test passed!
>
> My 3.03.alpha0 build testing:`
>
> Fedora 8, x86_64: pass
> suse, x86_64: pass
> osx10.5 intel: pass
On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 8:18 AM, John Cremona <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 3.0.3.alpha0 built ok and all test passed!
My 3.03.alpha0 build testing:`
Fedora 8, x86_64: pass
suse, x86_64: pass
osx10.5 intel: pass
ubuntu32bit: pass
debian32bit: pass
debian 64bit: pass
ubuntu 64bit: pass
Suse, It
3.0.3.alpha0 built ok and all test passed!
John
2008/5/28 mabshoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> Hello folks,
>
> this is Sage 3.0.3.alpha0. It looks like we we are continuing our
> somewhat slow development pace while waiting for the coercion
> rewrite to finish. Trac still has a staggering 75+ patc
On May 29, 4:14 pm, "David Joyner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi David,
> At first, sage -testall repoted a failure, in twist.py, but on
> retesting it passed:
Thanks for testing. The twist.py pops up occasionally and it seems to
be cause by ports being closed/used - but I am certainly not 100%
At first, sage -testall repoted a failure, in twist.py, but on
retesting it passed:
...
The following tests failed:
sage -t devel/sage/sage/server/simple/twist.py
Total time for all tests: 5024.1 seconds
Please see /home/wdj/sagefiles/sage-3.0.3.alpha0/tmp/test.log for the
complete log
33 matches
Mail list logo
