*To*: debian-science@lists.debian.org*Subject*: Re: Sage 5.0 in debian : an incomplete (but beautiful?) overview*From*: Julien Puydt <julien.puydt@laposte.net>*Date*: Fri, 18 May 2012 11:54:57 +0200*Message-id*: <20120518115457.558dd7e0@newton.localdomain>*In-reply-to*: <20120518091338.GC19404@em.cs.uni-frankfurt.de>*References*: <20120517231855.29bfa174@newton.localdomain> <20120517231813.GB19404@em.cs.uni-frankfurt.de> <20120518095205.3a2635c9@newton.localdomain> <20120518091338.GC19404@em.cs.uni-frankfurt.de>

Le vendredi 18 mai, Felix Salfelder a écrit: > Hi Julien. > > On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 09:52:05AM +0200, Julien Puydt wrote: > > How important is it to switch packages from GMP to MPIR? <snip> > if my intuition is right, and nothing (but speed and liberty) depends > on mpir, i'd stick to gmp for now. once anything works (and somebody > cares), the switch to mpir should be possible independently. I love when the conclusion is "let's do nothing" ;-) > > > - 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. > > if sage (the software) runs with 2.3 (who can check that?), that would > be much better. I don't know if sage runs with 2.3 (and I can hardly check since sage 5.0 doesn't compile here because of gcc 4.7). Notice that sage has both flint (1.5.2) and flintqs, which is a "quadratic sieve" program based on flint, which according to http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/11792 is now found in flint itself, and should probably be packaged in the same src:flint package in debian. I compiled flint 2.3 on my X86_64 box and ran all tests this morning ; my ARM box managed to compile it but fails some tests (and is still running them). I have those problems to report upstream, so I'll probably use the occasion to ask if they think this flint (which is a rewrite) is ready to replace the one in sage. I'll report here later. > > > - packaged mpir (debian-science git) > > Good ; when will it go in unstable? > > not working on it right now (see above). maybe somebody else has a use > for it? Well, if it isn't useful for the sage packaging effort, I'm not that interested in it. > > > - packaged sagenb, sage-scripts (locally) > > > > Do they 'work'? > hard to tell. sagenb is just a python library, sage (the > python-library) imports it before it segfaults. so at least the > packaging 'works'. > > sage-script is a set of python fragments that need to be freed from > the SAGE_* variables (which won't make much sense on debian). i did > this to the interactive shell ("sage") and fixed sage-gdb. sage-test > would have been the next i'd like to get running... Ah, yes, the environment variables. Indeed I expect debian/patches/ directories will be quite full for all sage-native spkg... > > > - polybori 0.8.0 (pushed to debian-science git, working but > > > incomplete) > > > > How incomplete is it? > it builds. probably incomplete copyright and the like. don't we need > 0.8.1 for sage? Well, there are two good reasons to package at least 0.8.1 : - that's what sage 5.0 has ; - according to http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/12655, that is the first version which doesn't make gcc 4.7 choke, and gcc 4.7 is what I have on my unstable :-) > > > - 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. > Cc me, i might be able to fix the simple things. I'll forward you my report. > > > - 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. > > thats about what i did (locally). Ok. > > then I guess it's not using autotools, is it? > > static Makefile. debian/rules just sets some flags. looks a bit > fragile. Yes, but if upstream is like this... > > 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). > > i'm not expecting boost problems on debian, but good to know... Well, since they supposedly (according to the explicit deps) only use boost for polybori, I hope everything will just be alright too. Snark on #debian-science

**References**:**Sage 5.0 in debian : an incomplete (but beautiful?) overview***From:*Julien Puydt <julien.puydt@laposte.net>

**Re: Sage 5.0 in debian : an incomplete (but beautiful?) overview***From:*Felix Salfelder <salfelder@em.cs.uni-frankfurt.de>

**Re: Sage 5.0 in debian : an incomplete (but beautiful?) overview***From:*Julien Puydt <julien.puydt@laposte.net>

**Re: Sage 5.0 in debian : an incomplete (but beautiful?) overview***From:*Felix Salfelder <salfelder@em.cs.uni-frankfurt.de>

- Prev by Date:
**Re: Sage 5.0 in debian : an incomplete (but beautiful?) overview** - Next by Date:
**Re: Sage 5.0 in debian : an incomplete (but beautiful?) overview** - Previous by thread:
**Re: Sage 5.0 in debian : an incomplete (but beautiful?) overview** - Next by thread:
**Re: Sage 5.0 in debian : an incomplete (but beautiful?) overview** - Index(es):