William Stein wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 12:17 AM, Dr. David Kirkby
> wrote:
>> Dr. David Kirkby wrote:
>>> William Stein wrote:
sage: An error occurred while installing database_cremona_ellcurve-20071019
I'm really surprised that this fails, given that it is just extracting
On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 12:17 AM, Dr. David Kirkby
wrote:
>
> Dr. David Kirkby wrote:
>> William Stein wrote:
>
>>> sage: An error occurred while installing database_cremona_ellcurve-20071019
>>>
>>> I'm really surprised that this fails, given that it is just extracting
>>> and copying over a dir
Dr. David Kirkby wrote:
> William Stein wrote:
>> sage: An error occurred while installing database_cremona_ellcurve-20071019
>>
>> I'm really surprised that this fails, given that it is just extracting
>> and copying over a directory -- nothing gets built. Maybe it is a
>> GNU-ism to copy, or a
On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 at 10:53AM -0800, mhampton wrote:
> It needs the glpk and 4ti2 packages, so I attempt to install them with
> "sage -i" in the spkg- install script. The bad thing is I hard-code
> the package numbers, so that will break if they are updated.
Regarding just that issue, the patch
On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 4:17 PM, Ralf Hemmecke wrote:
>
>>> Since you are *not* distributing the programs together, I don't see how
>>> the GPL applies. The *user* is the one that is running the command to
>>> download the non-gpl program, and all linking or other dependencies are
>>> happening
>> Since you are *not* distributing the programs together, I don't see how
>> the GPL applies. The *user* is the one that is running the command to
>> download the non-gpl program, and all linking or other dependencies are
>> happening on the user's machine, at their request. The result is not
>
On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 3:26 PM, Jason Grout
wrote:
>
> William Stein wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 11:36 AM, David Joyner wrote:
>>> The solution is simple. Have two versions of a package,
>>> say
>>>
>>> my-gpl-package.spkg
>>> my-gpl-package-with-all-nongpl-dependencies-autoloaded.spkg.
>
William Stein wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 11:36 AM, David Joyner wrote:
>> The solution is simple. Have two versions of a package,
>> say
>>
>> my-gpl-package.spkg
>> my-gpl-package-with-all-nongpl-dependencies-autoloaded.spkg.
>>
>> The last differs from the first only in the license and a
On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 2:44 PM, mhampton wrote:
>
> I noticed in trying this out that if a package is already installed,
>
> sage -c "install_package('package_name')"
>
> raises a ValueError, which is definitely not the behavior I'd like.
> Is there a reason it does that? Perhaps simply printin
On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 2:39 PM, Ralf Hemmecke wrote:
>
>> Regarding: "I was told that a GPL package must not install a non-GPL
>> package."
>>
>> The above can never legally come up, right? If a program Foo is "GPL"
>> and fundamentally depends on a program Bar that is licensed
>> GPL-incompat
I noticed in trying this out that if a package is already installed,
sage -c "install_package('package_name')"
raises a ValueError, which is definitely not the behavior I'd like.
Is there a reason it does that? Perhaps simply printing that
announcement would be sufficient?
-Marshall
On Nov 13
On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 2:30 PM, Simon King wrote:
>
> Hi William!
>
> On 13 Nov., 22:46, William Stein wrote:
> ...
>> Regarding: "I was told that a GPL package must not install a non-GPL
>> package."
>>
>> The above can never legally come up, right? If a program Foo is "GPL"
>> and fundament
> Regarding: "I was told that a GPL package must not install a non-GPL package."
>
> The above can never legally come up, right? If a program Foo is "GPL"
> and fundamentally depends on a program Bar that is licensed
> GPL-incompatible, then distributing Foo at all violates the GPL right?
No. C
Hi William!
On 13 Nov., 22:46, William Stein wrote:
...
> Regarding: "I was told that a GPL package must not install a non-GPL package."
>
> The above can never legally come up, right? If a program Foo is "GPL"
> and fundamentally depends on a program Bar that is licensed
> GPL-incompatible, th
OK, I have changed the spkg-install to use your solution. I have not
tested it yet though, since I am unsure how to un-install those
packages.
-Marshall
On Nov 13, 3:46 pm, William Stein wrote:
> Regarding: "so I attempt to install them with "sage -i" in the
> spkg-install script. The bad th
On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 11:36 AM, David Joyner wrote:
>
> The solution is simple. Have two versions of a package,
> say
>
> my-gpl-package.spkg
> my-gpl-package-with-all-nongpl-dependencies-autoloaded.spkg.
>
> The last differs from the first only in the license and a few lines of
> the installer
Simon King wrote:
> Hi Marshall!
>
> On 13 Nov., 19:53, mhampton wrote:
>> I don't see why optional packages should not try to install their
>> dependencies.
>
> The reason is the licence. Gap_packages (or at least the SmallGroups
> library) is not GPL. I was told that a GPL package must not in
Its at http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/7453.
If you want a direct link to the spkg, its at:
http://sage.math.washington.edu/home/mhampton/sandpile-1.51.spkg
Its missing a few things, such as a mercurial repository, but I just
want to get it in as an experimental package so I didn't spe
On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 1:53 PM, mhampton wrote:
>
> I don't see why optional packages should not try to install their
> dependencies. I just made a new experimental spkg (ticket #7453) for
> David Perkinson's sandpile module. It needs the glpk and 4ti2
> packages, so I attempt to install them
The solution is simple. Have two versions of a package,
say
my-gpl-package.spkg
my-gpl-package-with-all-nongpl-dependencies-autoloaded.spkg.
The last differs from the first only in the license and a few lines of
the installer script.
On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 2:25 PM, mhampton wrote:
>
> Hmmm.
Hmmm. That makes sense, even though it also makes me want to bang my
head on my desk.
That means it should be OK if all the packages involved are GPL.
There must be some variants that would also be compatible - ?
-Marshall
On Nov 13, 1:16 pm, Simon King wrote:
> Hi Marshall!
>
> On 13 Nov., 19
Hi Marshall!
On 13 Nov., 19:53, mhampton wrote:
> I don't see why optional packages should not try to install their
> dependencies.
The reason is the licence. Gap_packages (or at least the SmallGroups
library) is not GPL. I was told that a GPL package must not install a
non-GPL package. For the
I don't see why optional packages should not try to install their
dependencies. I just made a new experimental spkg (ticket #7453) for
David Perkinson's sandpile module. It needs the glpk and 4ti2
packages, so I attempt to install them with "sage -i" in the spkg-
install script. The bad thing i
> There is work being done on FriCAS at
> http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/6517.
> The work on FriCAS-1.0.8 is a bit delayed due to troubles with the
> aldor interface. I don't know what the status is but the intent is to
> make two packages.
Ehm... I can't remember why it shouldn't wor
Martin Rubey wrote:
>
>> NOT INSTALLED:
>
>> fricas-1.0.3.p0
> this is ancient! (should be 1.0.8 meanwhile) Although, I admit I have
> no idea whether anybody has built a 1.0.8 package yet.
Yes, it looks like that was released in June 2008 according to the Sourceforge
download page.
I see t
Simon King wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Note that some optional packages fail to install due to dependencies.
> For example, my p_group_cohomology-1.1.spkg requires that gap_packages
> is installed first. In the log posted by David, this is given as the
> reason for the failed installation.
>
> Is it possib
On Nov 13, 9:34 am, Martin Rubey
wrote:
> > NOT INSTALLED:
> > fricas-1.0.3.p0
>
> this is ancient! (should be 1.0.8 meanwhile) Although, I admit I have
> no idea whether anybody has built a 1.0.8 package yet.
>
> > 2) checking for noweave... no
> > axiom_build_bindir =
> > /export/home/drkirk
Hi!
Note that some optional packages fail to install due to dependencies.
For example, my p_group_cohomology-1.1.spkg requires that gap_packages
is installed first. In the log posted by David, this is given as the
reason for the failed installation.
Is it possible to take care of such dependenci
> NOT INSTALLED:
> fricas-1.0.3.p0
this is ancient! (should be 1.0.8 meanwhile) Although, I admit I have
no idea whether anybody has built a 1.0.8 package yet.
> 2) checking for noweave... no
> axiom_build_bindir =
> /export/home/drkirkby/sage-4.2/spkg/build/fricas-1.0.3.p0/build-dir/build/s
William Stein wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 1:08 PM, Dr. David Kirkby
> wrote:
>> William Stein wrote:
>>> Dave,
>>>
>>> I'm curious what happens if you try to install all optional spkg's on
>>> solaris.
>>> You could that in Sage by pasting this after the sage prompt:
>> Since you do not
2009/11/12 Dr. David Kirkby :
>
> William Stein wrote:
>> Dave,
>>
>> I'm curious what happens if you try to install all optional spkg's on
>> solaris.
>> You could that in Sage by pasting this after the sage prompt:
>>
>> for X in optional_packages()[1]: install_package(X)
>>
>> Then afterwards
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 1:08 PM, Dr. David Kirkby
wrote:
>
> William Stein wrote:
>> Dave,
>>
>> I'm curious what happens if you try to install all optional spkg's on
>> solaris.
>> You could that in Sage by pasting this after the sage prompt:
>>
>> for X in optional_packages()[1]: install_pack
William Stein wrote:
> Dave,
>
> I'm curious what happens if you try to install all optional spkg's on solaris.
> You could that in Sage by pasting this after the sage prompt:
>
> for X in optional_packages()[1]: install_package(X)
>
> Then afterwards, what is the output of
>
> sage -opti
William Stein wrote:
> Dave,
>
> I'm curious what happens if you try to install all optional spkg's on solaris.
> You could that in Sage by pasting this after the sage prompt:
>
> for X in optional_packages()[1]: install_package(X)
>
> Then afterwards, what is the output of
>
> sage -opti
34 matches
Mail list logo
