On 19 May 2016 at 19:43, John Cremona wrote:
> On 19 May 2016 at 18:06, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
>> On 2016-05-19 18:15, John Cremona wrote:
>>>
>>> On 19 May 2016 at 17:11, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
On 2016-05-19 13:54, John Cremona wrote:
>
>
> Was it the 6.10 - 7.1 upgrade whic
On 19 May 2016 at 18:06, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
> On 2016-05-19 18:15, John Cremona wrote:
>>
>> On 19 May 2016 at 17:11, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2016-05-19 13:54, John Cremona wrote:
Was it the 6.10 - 7.1 upgrade which required rebuilding from scratch?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes.
On 2016-05-19 18:15, John Cremona wrote:
On 19 May 2016 at 17:11, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
On 2016-05-19 13:54, John Cremona wrote:
Was it the 6.10 - 7.1 upgrade which required rebuilding from scratch?
Yes. You cannot upgrade/downgrade between Sage 6.x and Sage 7.y
Just ot be clear I did no
On 19 May 2016 at 17:11, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
> On 2016-05-19 13:54, John Cremona wrote:
>>
>> Was it the 6.10 - 7.1 upgrade which required rebuilding from scratch?
>
>
> Yes. You cannot upgrade/downgrade between Sage 6.x and Sage 7.y
Just ot be clear I did not run sage -upgrade which never work
On 2016-05-19 13:54, John Cremona wrote:
Was it the 6.10 - 7.1 upgrade which required rebuilding from scratch?
Yes. You cannot upgrade/downgrade between Sage 6.x and Sage 7.y
If that's what happened, just run make distclean.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Googl
On 19 May 2016 at 12:55, Francois Bissey
wrote:
>
>> On 19/05/2016, at 23:42, John Cremona wrote:
>>
>> Removing old version of IPython...
>>
>> BUILDING IPYTHON
>>python: 2.7.8 (default, May 18 2016, 14:
> On 19/05/2016, at 23:42, John Cremona wrote:
>
> Removing old version of IPython...
>
> BUILDING IPYTHON
>python: 2.7.8 (default, May 18 2016, 14:29:28) [GCC 4.8.4]
>
2.7.8??? What’s happening to y
As a second test on the same machine, I found a repo which was on a
development branch at 7.1.rc0 and I pulled from trac and have started
to make that.
The one repo I had trouble (as reported) with was one of a pair I use
for the system-wide install on the machine so that I can update one
while le
On 19 May 2016 at 12:24, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
> On 2016-05-19 11:55, John Cremona wrote:
>>
>> Jeroen: I have make's 3 times so far, here is the history:
>
>
> I want to see the output of "make", i.e. the part before the "The following
> package(s) may have failed to build:" line that you quoted.
On 2016-05-19 11:55, John Cremona wrote:
Jeroen: I have make's 3 times so far, here is the history:
I want to see the output of "make", i.e. the part before the "The
following package(s) may have failed to build:" line that you quoted.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed
Jeroen: I have make's 3 times so far, here is the history:
2015 git co master
2016 git remote -v
2017 make
2018 SAGE_KEEP_BUILT_SPKGS=yes make
2019 less /usr/local/sage/sage-2/logs/pkgs/ipython-2.3.0.p0.log
2020 scp /usr/local/sage/sage-2/logs/pkgs/ipython-2.3.0.p0.log warwick:
2021
> On 19/05/2016, at 21:05, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
>
> On 2016-05-19 11:01, John Cremona wrote:
>> Volker:
>>
>> $ ldd local/lib/python/site-packages/zmq/backend/cython/_device.so
>> linux-vdso.so.1 => (0x7ffd293f8000)
>> libzmq.so.4 => /usr/local/sage/sage-2/local/lib/libzmq
On 2016-05-19 11:01, John Cremona wrote:
Volker:
$ ldd local/lib/python/site-packages/zmq/backend/cython/_device.so
linux-vdso.so.1 => (0x7ffd293f8000)
libzmq.so.4 => /usr/local/sage/sage-2/local/lib/libzmq.so.4
(0x7fc19ff1)
libpython2.7.so.1.0 =>
/usr/loc
Volker:
$ ldd local/lib/python/site-packages/zmq/backend/cython/_device.so
linux-vdso.so.1 => (0x7ffd293f8000)
libzmq.so.4 => /usr/local/sage/sage-2/local/lib/libzmq.so.4
(0x7fc19ff1)
libpython2.7.so.1.0 =>
/usr/local/sage/sage-2/local/lib/libpython2.7.so.1.0
(
I would prefer them versioned (like now and this one shows as 2.3.0.p0) and
time stamped.
But I agree it is confusing except for the most hardcore devs who want it.
François
> On 19/05/2016, at 19:33, Volker Braun wrote:
>
> Shows once again: we should overwrite logs and only keep the most re
Shows once again: we should overwrite logs and only keep the most recent
one. The current state is super confusing.
On Wednesday, May 18, 2016 at 10:50:03 PM UTC+2, François wrote:
>
> On 05/19/16 02:28, John Cremona wrote:
> > Two similar machines running ubuntu 14.04 and gcc-4.8.4. On one 7.
On 2016-05-18 22:49, François Bissey wrote:
On 05/19/16 02:28, John Cremona wrote:
Two similar machines running ubuntu 14.04 and gcc-4.8.4. On one 7.2
built fine but on the other ipython ran into difficulties. This was
an upgrade from 7.1 in the git sense, i.e. I have the source repo,
which wa
On 05/19/16 02:28, John Cremona wrote:
Two similar machines running ubuntu 14.04 and gcc-4.8.4. On one 7.2
built fine but on the other ipython ran into difficulties. This was
an upgrade from 7.1 in the git sense, i.e. I have the source repo,
which was probably at 7.0 and first did git pull trac
18 matches
Mail list logo
