[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Sage 5.0 in debian : an incomplete (but beautiful?) overview

Le vendredi 18 mai, Felix Salfelder a écrit:
> - extended/switched mpfr, mpfi, givaro, lcalc (more?) to support mpir
> (locally)

How important is it to switch packages from GMP to MPIR? I mean, is it
needed, does it bring anything? I hate changes to upstream which aren't
limited to packaging needs. (Perhaps because I'm upstream in a project
and had bad experiences with packages which made stupid things...)

> - moved flint package to 1.5.2 (locally)

Ah, something I can tell more about : sage uses 1.5.2, but with a few
patches, while upstream is up to version 2.3. I'll ask on sage-devel why
they don't use 2.3 : if I remember well, 1.5.2 has its own set of
Makefiles (which give portability issues), while 2.3 uses a configure
script (but I don't know how good it is), so it might be worth upgrading
in both sage and debian.

> - moved givaro to 3.6.0 (not pushed yet)

Yes, we discussed it :-)

> - packaged mpir (debian-science git)

Good ; when will it go in unstable?

> - packaged sagenb, sage-scripts (locally)

Do they 'work'?

> - polybori 0.8.0 (pushed to debian-science git, working but
> incomplete)

How incomplete is it?

> - singular is half way done (debian-science git)

Yes, Bernhard(brl) pointed me to it to try, but it doesn't compile here
-- I reported him the result already.

> - liblcalc-dev 0.0.20090723-1 (draft, locally)

I never looked at it more than "current debian not suitable for sage" ;
if it isn't just a case of adding a description of libcalc-dev to
control and a libcalc-dev.install, then I guess it's not using
autotools, is it?

> Please help on any of these :D

I'll start with having a look at flint in sage and upstream : I'd
rather see debian&sage follow upstream, than have debian follow sage
which minds its own business without upstream.

> also i've patched the sage setup.py, module_list.py to "work" on
> debian, resulting in libcsage and python-sage packages. i've just
> moved to 5.0, doesn't compile (missing m4rie.h). i'm aiming at a
> proof-of-concept, for that matter, m4rie might be the next thing i'll
> do... 


I'd also like to clarify what they do with boost in sage : it seems
they took their sources not from upstream, but from what is in
polybori...  and they seem to have problems with it (sic).

Snark on #debian-science

Reply to: