Don't worry, I won't try to convince sage maintainers that they should not
downgrade giac, it seems we do have too incompatible views and probably not
the same target audience (which may explain that some people here believe
giac is about solving a few more integrals than maxima or sympy). Howev
On Fri, Feb 21, 2025 at 03:45:17PM +0100, Vincent Delecroix wrote:
> I think it would be more productive to make two PRs: one for making
> the package which is likely to create a consensus and one for demoting
> to optional which might be controversial.
The package is already done, it's in https:/
On 2025-02-21 15:45:17, Vincent Delecroix wrote:
> I think it would be more productive to make two PRs: one for making
> the package which is likely to create a consensus and one for demoting
> to optional which might be controversial.
While generally a good idea, in this case it would create more
Giac has always segfaulted on my M2 Mac Mini buildbot, so it never got
*worse* when merging a ticket. As far as I know it only works on Intel macs
(endangered species as they are).
For the record, +1 to making giac optional.
On Friday, February 21, 2025 at 3:57:53 AM UTC+1 Dima Pasechnik wrot
I think it would be more productive to make two PRs: one for making
the package which is likely to create a consensus and one for demoting
to optional which might be controversial.
One important argument against optional packages is that they are
rarely available in linux system pacakges (on a sys
On Thu, Feb 20, 2025 at 1:25 PM John H Palmieri wrote:
>
> For what it's worth, on my macos M2 machine, giac builds but it fails its
> test suite:
Given that macOS is a supported platform, one has to have jolly good
reasons for keeping giac standard - while it fails self-tests.
If Volker would b
