Re: [sage-devel] Porting sagemath to Raspberry Pi OS

On Thu, Jul 9, 2020 at 2:46 PM Jaap Spies wrote: > > real 51m45.870s > user 65m53.661s > sys 1m28.486s > Copying package files from temporary location > /home/pi/sagemath/sage-9.2.beta4/local/var/tmp/sage/build/fplll-5.3.3/inst to > /home/pi/sagemath/sage-9.2.beta4/local > Successfully installed

Re: [sage-devel] Porting sagemath to Raspberry Pi OS

real 51m45.870s user 65m53.661s sys 1m28.486s Copying package files from temporary location /home/pi/sagemath/sage-9.2.beta4/local/var/tmp/sage/build/fplll-5.3.3/inst to /home/pi/sagemath/sage-9.2.beta4/local Successfully installed fplll-5.3.3 Deleting temporary build directory /home/pi/sagemath/

Re: [sage-devel] Porting sagemath to Raspberry Pi OS

The fplll upgrade which should work on ARM (and thus on Raspberry Pi) has been merged in the latest beta, 9.2.beta4 Please report whether it works for you or not. On Thu, 9 Jul 2020, 13:31 Jaap Spies, wrote: > Saying Raspberry Pi is saying education. There are zillion Raspberry Pi's > out ther

[sage-devel] Porting sagemath to Raspberry Pi OS

Saying Raspberry Pi is saying education. There are zillion Raspberry Pi's out there. Almost all of them are running Raspbian, now called Raspberry Pi OS. On every raspbian system there is an implementation of Mathematica. Wolfram was clever when he decided to make Matematica available to the peopl

[sage-devel] porting Sage to OpenBSD

Please see https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/29677 An immediate task would be to add many missing on OpenBSD packages. (Note that OpenBSD has a relatively rapid turnaround in adding new packages, as opposed to e.g. Debian) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Grou

[sage-devel] Porting .sage files to sage-9.0

I had a recent discussion asking if there are any good tools for porting Sage code to Python 3. Given the recent discussion about how long we support Python 2, it seems like one concrete step we can take to help users is to provide s

Re: [sage-devel] Porting SageMath to Windows 64

On Friday, 9 October 2015 00:38:37 UTC+2, William wrote: > > >>> On cygwin32 the result was decent. > >> > >> > >> > >> How many people *use* it? > > > > Not even me! > > I guess it misses advertising, proper packaging, proper testing, proper > > continuous integration, ... > > The last

Re: [sage-devel] Porting SageMath to Windows 64

>>> On cygwin32 the result was decent. >> >> >> >> How many people *use* it? > > Not even me! > I guess it misses advertising, proper packaging, proper testing, proper > continuous integration, ... The last few times I spent months on Windows porting, the net result of using Cygwin was -- in pract

Re: [sage-devel] Porting SageMath to Windows 64

On Friday, October 9, 2015 at 12:27:05 AM UTC+2, William wrote: > > > > On Thursday, October 8, 2015, Jean-Pierre Flori > wrote: > >> >> >> On Thursday, October 8, 2015 at 9:10:17 PM UTC+2, William wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thursday, October 8, 2015, David Joyner wrote: >>> On Thu, Oct 8,

Re: [sage-devel] Porting SageMath to Windows 64

On Thursday, October 8, 2015, Jean-Pierre Flori wrote: > > > On Thursday, October 8, 2015 at 9:10:17 PM UTC+2, William wrote: >> >> >> >> On Thursday, October 8, 2015, David Joyner wrote: >> >>> On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 2:58 PM, William Stein wrote: >>> > >>> > >>> > On Thursday, October 8, 2015,

Re: [sage-devel] Porting SageMath to Windows 64

On Thursday, October 8, 2015 at 9:10:17 PM UTC+2, William wrote: > > > > On Thursday, October 8, 2015, David Joyner > wrote: > >> On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 2:58 PM, William Stein wrote: >> > >> > >> > On Thursday, October 8, 2015, David Joyner wrote: >> >> >> >> Before this thread drops off the r

Re: [sage-devel] Porting SageMath to Windows 64

On Thursday, 8 October 2015 20:32:20 UTC+2, David Joyner wrote: > > Before this thread drops off the radar, I have a question. How hard > would it be to rebuild (not port) Sage starting with windows Python, > then adding windows GAP, windows SIngular, networkxx, and > SymPy+friends, of which G

Re: [sage-devel] Porting SageMath to Windows 64

On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 2:58 PM, William Stein wrote: > > > On Thursday, October 8, 2015, David Joyner wrote: >> >> Before this thread drops off the radar, I have a question. How hard >> would it be to rebuild (not port) Sage starting with windows Python, >> then adding windows GAP, windows SIngul

Re: [sage-devel] Porting SageMath to Windows 64

On Thursday, October 8, 2015, David Joyner wrote: > On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 2:58 PM, William Stein > wrote: > > > > > > On Thursday, October 8, 2015, David Joyner > wrote: > >> > >> Before this thread drops off the radar, I have a question. How hard > >> would it be to rebuild (not port) Sage st

Re: [sage-devel] Porting SageMath to Windows 64

On Thursday, October 8, 2015, David Joyner wrote: > Before this thread drops off the radar, I have a question. How hard > would it be to rebuild (not port) Sage starting with windows Python, > then adding windows GAP, windows SIngular, networkxx, and > SymPy+friends, of which GAP+Singular communi

Re: [sage-devel] Porting SageMath to Windows 64

Before this thread drops off the radar, I have a question. How hard would it be to rebuild (not port) Sage starting with windows Python, then adding windows GAP, windows SIngular, networkxx, and SymPy+friends, of which GAP+Singular communicate with the Sage terminal via pexpect? Call it WinSage 1.0

Re: [sage-devel] Porting SageMath to Windows 64

On Wednesday, 7 October 2015 17:38:00 UTC+2, bluescarni wrote: > > Some random thoughts: > > - I am not so convinced the strategy of automatic long -> long long > patching is actually feasible, I think in practice this is gonna be a big > can of worms. Pushing upstream to fix their code is a mu

Re: [sage-devel] Porting SageMath to Windows 64

4GB of Ram should be enough for anyone. :-) On Wednesday, 7 October 2015 21:24:01 UTC+2, Peter Luschny wrote: > > 7. Oktober 2015 20:05:11 UTC+2, bluescarni: >> >> Practically, it's an architecture that supports "natively" 64 bit ints >> but the pointers are 32 bits wide. AFAIK, this is supposed

Re: [sage-devel] Porting SageMath to Windows 64

7. Oktober 2015 20:05:11 UTC+2, bluescarni: > > Practically, it's an architecture that supports "natively" 64 bit ints but > the pointers are 32 bits wide. AFAIK, this is supposed to improve > performance for pointer-heavy workloads that do not need to allocate much > RAM but still benefit from

Re: [sage-devel] Porting SageMath to Windows 64

On Wednesday, October 7, 2015 at 8:03:15 PM UTC+2, Bill Hart wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, 7 October 2015 19:48:54 UTC+2, bluescarni wrote: >> >> PARI requires (required?) sizeof(mp_limb_t)==sizeof(void*), which is not >> guaranteed and not enforceable by PARI (as it's up to GMP to decide what >

Re: [sage-devel] Porting SageMath to Windows 64

On Wednesday, 7 October 2015 20:06:41 UTC+2, bluescarni wrote: > > I think in FLINT you also have the issue that you are using tagged > pointers (last time I checked anyway). > Yeah, we merged some patches recently to fix some of the issues here. I don't think we got them all yet. Sometimes c

Re: [sage-devel] Porting SageMath to Windows 64

On 7 October 2015 at 20:13, Bill Hart wrote: > I could be wrong, but this doesn't sound like it includes SageMath. :-) > Probably :) I am not sure about the allocation limit, as the limit might only apply to large contiguous allocations. Or there might be other memory addressing tricks at play.

Re: [sage-devel] Porting SageMath to Windows 64

On Wednesday, 7 October 2015 20:05:11 UTC+2, bluescarni wrote: > > Practically, it's an architecture that supports "natively" 64 bit ints but > the pointers are 32 bits wide. AFAIK, this is supposed to improve > performance for pointer-heavy workloads that do not need to allocate much > RAM bu

Re: [sage-devel] Porting SageMath to Windows 64

I think in FLINT you also have the issue that you are using tagged pointers (last time I checked anyway). On 7 October 2015 at 20:03, Bill Hart wrote: > > > On Wednesday, 7 October 2015 19:48:54 UTC+2, bluescarni wrote: >> >> PARI requires (required?) sizeof(mp_limb_t)==sizeof(void*), which is n

Re: [sage-devel] Porting SageMath to Windows 64

Practically, it's an architecture that supports "natively" 64 bit ints but the pointers are 32 bits wide. AFAIK, this is supposed to improve performance for pointer-heavy workloads that do not need to allocate much RAM but still benefit from the 64 bit ints. On 7 October 2015 at 19:54, Bill Hart

Re: [sage-devel] Porting SageMath to Windows 64

On Wednesday, 7 October 2015 19:48:54 UTC+2, bluescarni wrote: > > PARI requires (required?) sizeof(mp_limb_t)==sizeof(void*), which is not > guaranteed and not enforceable by PARI (as it's up to GMP to decide what > exactly an mp_limb_t is). > I think I understand now. I was misled by the per

Re: [sage-devel] Porting SageMath to Windows 64

Actually, now I'm not even sure I understand what x32 is. I looked it up and found this page and found considerable disagreement on what it is: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/7635013/difference-between-x86-x32-and-x64-architectures I think I'll give it a miss for a while. Bill. On Wednesd

Re: [sage-devel] Porting SageMath to Windows 64

On Wednesday, 7 October 2015 19:11:35 UTC+2, Jeroen Demeyer wrote: > > On 2015-10-07 18:50, Bill Hart wrote: > > > > > > On Wednesday, 7 October 2015 18:33:01 UTC+2, Jeroen Demeyer wrote: > > > > On 2015-10-07 18:23, Bill Hart wrote: > > > Cygwin also provides a POSIX environment,

Re: [sage-devel] Porting SageMath to Windows 64

PARI requires (required?) sizeof(mp_limb_t)==sizeof(void*), which is not guaranteed and not enforceable by PARI (as it's up to GMP to decide what exactly an mp_limb_t is). On 7 October 2015 at 19:03, Bill Hart wrote: > > > On Wednesday, 7 October 2015 18:37:41 UTC+2, Jean-Pierre Flori wrote: >>

Re: [sage-devel] Porting SageMath to Windows 64

On Wednesday, 7 October 2015 18:56:47 UTC+2, bluescarni wrote: > > I agree that's better if they will allow it. But I'm not sure some of the >> things SageMath depends on are even still maintained, let alone do all >> projects have the resources to keep maintaining such things, which is >> eve

Re: [sage-devel] Porting SageMath to Windows 64

On 2015-10-07 18:50, Bill Hart wrote: On Wednesday, 7 October 2015 18:33:01 UTC+2, Jeroen Demeyer wrote: On 2015-10-07 18:23, Bill Hart wrote: > Cygwin also provides a POSIX environment, so I'm not sure I understand > why this is an "elephant in the room". It's an elepha

Re: [sage-devel] Porting SageMath to Windows 64

On Wednesday, 7 October 2015 18:37:41 UTC+2, Jean-Pierre Flori wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, October 7, 2015 at 6:35:36 PM UTC+2, bluescarni wrote: >> >> * PARI which assumes that sizeof(long) == sizeof(void*), there is an experimental branch fixing this: http://pari.math.u-bordea

Re: [sage-devel] Porting SageMath to Windows 64

> > I agree that's better if they will allow it. But I'm not sure some of the > things SageMath depends on are even still maintained, let alone do all > projects have the resources to keep maintaining such things, which is > eventually what they get asked to do. Moreover, not all developers feel >

Re: [sage-devel] Porting SageMath to Windows 64

On Wednesday, 7 October 2015 18:33:58 UTC+2, Jean-Pierre Flori wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, October 7, 2015 at 6:23:21 PM UTC+2, Bill Hart wrote: >> >> >> >> On Wednesday, 7 October 2015 17:15:14 UTC+2, Jeroen Demeyer wrote: >>> >>> Is there any reason to assume that porting using MSYS2 is easier

Re: [sage-devel] Porting SageMath to Windows 64

On Wednesday, 7 October 2015 18:33:01 UTC+2, Jeroen Demeyer wrote: > > On 2015-10-07 18:23, Bill Hart wrote: > > Cygwin also provides a POSIX environment, so I'm not sure I understand > > why this is an "elephant in the room". > > It's an elephant in the room because your original post complet

Re: [sage-devel] Porting SageMath to Windows 64

On Wednesday, 7 October 2015 17:38:00 UTC+2, bluescarni wrote: > > Some random thoughts: > > - I am not so convinced the strategy of automatic long -> long long > patching is actually feasible, I think in practice this is gonna be a big > can of worms. Pushing upstream to fix their code is a mu

Re: [sage-devel] Porting SageMath to Windows 64

On Wednesday, October 7, 2015 at 6:35:36 PM UTC+2, bluescarni wrote: > > >>> * PARI which assumes that sizeof(long) == sizeof(void*), there is an >>> experimental branch fixing this: >>> http://pari.math.u-bordeaux.fr/archives/pari-dev-1505/msg00021.html >>> >> >> I am using Pari (not GP) today

Re: [sage-devel] Porting SageMath to Windows 64

> > >> * PARI which assumes that sizeof(long) == sizeof(void*), there is an >> experimental branch fixing this: >> http://pari.math.u-bordeaux.fr/archives/pari-dev-1505/msg00021.html >> > > I am using Pari (not GP) today on Windows 64. It was minimal effort on my > part to do so. I am not using a s

Re: [sage-devel] Porting SageMath to Windows 64

On Wednesday, October 7, 2015 at 6:23:21 PM UTC+2, Bill Hart wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, 7 October 2015 17:15:14 UTC+2, Jeroen Demeyer wrote: >> >> Is there any reason to assume that porting using MSYS2 is easier than >> porting using Cygwin? Because the latter is already hard enough. >> > > C

Re: [sage-devel] Porting SageMath to Windows 64

On 2015-10-07 18:23, Bill Hart wrote: Cygwin also provides a POSIX environment, so I'm not sure I understand why this is an "elephant in the room". It's an elephant in the room because your original post completely seems to ignore any possible problems with the POSIX layer, while the POSIX la

Re: [sage-devel] Porting SageMath to Windows 64

Perhaps I should also say that our long term plans for the Julia project I mentioned definitely include Gap and Singular, so we will be investing time and expertise into solving any issues with these, I am sure. It's a long term strategy for sure, but not one that is going to disappear overnigh

Re: [sage-devel] Porting SageMath to Windows 64

On Wednesday, 7 October 2015 18:18:02 UTC+2, Jean-Pierre Flori wrote: > > As far as I remember, apart from the lack of POSIX compatibility on > Windows/MSYS, the main obstacle to "natively" compile Sage on Windows 64 > were: > Just to clarify, I'm not talking about MSYS. That's a different thi

Re: [sage-devel] Porting SageMath to Windows 64

On Wednesday, 7 October 2015 17:15:14 UTC+2, Jeroen Demeyer wrote: > > Is there any reason to assume that porting using MSYS2 is easier than > porting using Cygwin? Because the latter is already hard enough. > Cygwin is personally of no use to me (native applications like Julia can't work wit

Re: [sage-devel] Porting SageMath to Windows 64

As far as I remember, apart from the lack of POSIX compatibility on Windows/MSYS, the main obstacle to "natively" compile Sage on Windows 64 were: * PARI which assumes that sizeof(long) == sizeof(void*), there is an experimental branch fixing this: http://pari.math.u-bordeaux.fr/archives/pari-d

Re: [sage-devel] Porting SageMath to Windows 64

Some random thoughts: - I am not so convinced the strategy of automatic long -> long long patching is actually feasible, I think in practice this is gonna be a big can of worms. Pushing upstream to fix their code is a much better long-term solution IMO (and I'd rather have nothing to do with proje

Re: [sage-devel] Porting SageMath to Windows 64

Is there any reason to assume that porting using MSYS2 is easier than porting using Cygwin? Because the latter is already hard enough. I can the main "elephant in the room" is the POSIX layer. Many pieces of Sage assume some kind of POSIX environment. Jeroen. -- You received this message bec

[sage-devel] Porting SageMath to Windows 64

HI all, William Stein recently bemoaned the fact that SageMath currently only runs natively on some brands of Linux, and not natively on the latest Windows or OSX (that is to say nothing of BSD). [1] Until recently, a port of SageMath to Windows has seemed like a pipe dream. However, things ha

[sage-devel] porting Sage to OS X 10.7

Hi, I've resolved the last issue [1] to getting Sage to build on OS X 10.7 with XCode 4.2 [2] and startup without segfaulting. I'm posting this mainly because I kept trying to bug people to help me with this last pynac segfault issue [1]. Next -- to "make ptestlong" and see what breaks... [1] h

[sage-devel] porting Sage to OS X Lion

Hi, I spent some time working through the metaticket [1] to port Sage to OS X 10.7 (Lion), and resolved two issues that people didn't know how to fix (building Maxima and building the Sage library), so now Sage *builds* on Lion. I've posted a source tarball that one can use to build from source [

[sage-devel] porting sage to OS X 10.7

Hi Sage Developers, To help with porting Sage to OS X 10.7, I bought 10.7, installed it, and setup a public-facing machine (actually, the old bsd.math.washington.edu) with OS X 10.7 and *XCode 4.1* installed on it.If you had an account on the old bsd.math.washington.edu computer, then you auto

Re: [sage-devel] Porting of LaTeX-Module for other TeX Systems

On Mon, 22 Nov 2010 at 03:45PM +, Martin 'golodhrim' Scholz wrote: > just was wondering if there is some interest in porting the > LaTeX-module for other systems too, as I am a ConTeXt user and love > the simple and python stylish coding of Sage I would like to work on a > fork of the LaTeX-mod

[sage-devel] Porting of LaTeX-Module for other TeX Systems

Hi List, just was wondering if there is some interest in porting the LaTeX-module for other systems too, as I am a ConTeXt user and love the simple and python stylish coding of Sage I would like to work on a fork of the LaTeX-module that could be natively used in ConTeXt, are there some others th

Re: [sage-devel] Porting to FreeBSD

On 10/27/10 07:04 AM, Geoff Ehrman wrote: Other than investigating the errors listed on http://wiki.sagemath.org/freebsd/sage-4.5 and in Trac, what can I do to help with the porting effort and is there someone coordinating this effort? -- Geoff Ehrman Graduate Student Dept. of Mathematics Univer

Re: [sage-devel] Porting to FreeBSD

Hi Geoff, Thank you for your interest in helping with the FreeBSD port. On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 5:04 PM, Geoff Ehrman wrote: > Other than investigating the errors listed > on http://wiki.sagemath.org/freebsd/sage-4.5 and in Trac, what can I do to > help with the porting effort The wiki page you

Re: [sage-devel] Porting to FreeBSD

On Wed, 27 Oct 2010 at 02:04AM -0400, Geoff Ehrman wrote: > Other than investigating the errors listed on > http://wiki.sagemath.org/freebsd/sage-4.5 and in Trac, what can I do to help > with the porting effort and is there someone coordinating this effort? Peter Jeremy has done a lot of work on F

[sage-devel] Porting to FreeBSD

Other than investigating the errors listed on http://wiki.sagemath.org/freebsd/sage-4.5 and in Trac, what can I do to help with the porting effort and is there someone coordinating this effort? -- Geoff Ehrman Graduate Student Dept. of Mathematics University of New Hampshire -- To post to this g

[sage-devel] porting

Hi Michael (cc: sage-devel and bcc: some sponsors), What's the quick status on: * OS X 64-bit porting * Cygwin porting * MSVC porting * Solaris porting * Itanium porting I want to jump into something (and maybe get others to), but I don't know which to do. Frankly, I think that now t