Hmmmm... There is still something I did not understand, sorry ;-) Coin-or/Cbc is meant to be an optional package, and if approved it will stay this way : fine GLPK should be a standard package, but as it is customary it will be optional for a while ( and perhaps a bit more to let us think about license issues ^^; )
What is the future of the class numerical.MIP (cf. http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/6502 ) which uses all of this but is totally useless without either Coin or Glpk ? Thinking Coin may not be available, this class detects whether it is installed and acts accordingly, but as I thought GLPK would always be installed, it assumes it is available without any checking. Will this class be included in the standard Sage, then ? And if so, do I need to write some code to make it detect the presence of GLPK and totally refuse to run otherwise ? I just finished to write the docstrings of the function edge_coloring ( coloring() has been renamed vertex_coloring as it is better to write a LP for edge_coloring than to use vertex_coloring on a line graph ). All the functions I mentionned are working and documented. In the end, when should I post a patch for them ? ;-) Thank you for your help ! :-) Nathann On Aug 1, 7:59 pm, William Stein <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sat, Aug 1, 2009 at 6:24 AM, David Joyner <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I think Nathann Cohen has done a very valuable service with the GLPK and > > COIN-OR-related packages. > > > That said, I have a "point of order" question. Is is true or false that the > > process for a package to become standard we > > (1) use trac to do nomination, testing, and acceptance as an optional > > package, > > (2) someone (William say) posts the spkg to > >http://www.sagemath.org/packages/optional/, > > (3) after a period of a few months, voting is done for making it standard. > > > In any case, I vote +1 for Nathann's GLPK spkg being moved to optional > > and the currently posted GLPK spkg on experimental removed, with the > > idea that it be proposed for inclusion as a standard package. > > Yes, this is exactly right. So GLPK should become optional for a while > before we even vote on it being standard. > > NOTE: GLPK is GPLv3. Since we need to retain the ability to release GPLv2 > versions of Sage for now, this is another very good reason to make it > optional for a while (so it is easy to swap out). > > William > > > > > > > If the above process is correct then there is nothing more to say. > > If not, I think someone (not me) look into this PyGLPK (I am > > not an OR person and have never heard of this before). By > > compare, I mean, look at the license, compare Nathann's wrappers and > > docstrings to PyGLPK's, etc. Maybe there are other wrappers > > on the internet (I have not done a google search, just mentioning > > possibilities here.) > > > On Sat, Aug 1, 2009 at 8:55 AM, Robert<[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I'd like LPs, too, of course. > > > > By the way, do you know of the projecthttp://pymprog.sourceforge.net/ > > > that wraps GLPK with it's modelling language in python? Using PyGLPK, > > > as an additional layer, I'm pretty sure there is some relevant code > > > there. > > > > On Aug 1, 12:46 pm, Carlo Hamalainen <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > >> On Sat, Aug 1, 2009 at 9:41 AM, Nathann Cohen<[email protected]> > > wrote: > > >> > Are you interested by LP features in Sage with GLPK as the native > > >> > solver ? ( The others would have to be optional packages but we > > >> > thought it would be smart to have a native one ). > > > >> Yes, especially if it can be used to speed up the graph colouring code > > >> in some cases (at the moment it uses my C++ dlx solver but I'm sure > > >> that LP etc could be useful in some other cases). > > > >> -- > > >> Carlo Hamalainenhttp://carlo-hamalainen.net > > -- > William Stein > Associate Professor of Mathematics > University of Washingtonhttp://wstein.org --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send an email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URLs: http://www.sagemath.org -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
