I have been thinking of converting polybori to distutils the same way that cvxopt does thing. It may turn out not to be possible without a bit of auto tools because of polybori builds proper libraries not just python extensions. But at best it is a band aid as no more development will be done. Someone else would have to step up to maintain the code in the long term even without new development.
François > On 12/01/2015, at 22:58, Martin Albrecht <martinralbre...@googlemail.com> > wrote: > > Hi, here's a reply from a PolyBoRi developer: > > ---------- Forwarded Message ---------- > > Subject: Re: [Polybori-discuss] Fwd: Re: [sage-devel] Re: Python 3 focused > Sage Days > Date: Saturday 10 Jan 2015, 22:19:16 > From: Alexander Dreyer <adre...@t-online.de> > To: Martin Albrecht <martinralbre...@googlemail.com>, Polybori Discuss > <polybori-disc...@lists.sourceforge.net> > > Hi Martin, > Unfortunately, Andrew's right, PolyBoRi died when its developers left the > scientific community. I'm not sure, what's the best way for SAGE to deal with > it. Porting PolyBoRi's py files shouldn't be a big deal, and Sage already > uses > it's own Cython-bindings for the data structures. What remains is scons. > Perhaps, it's easier to set up a setup.py or another build system than > removing PolyBoRi from all the crypto modules. (You probably know the > dependencies better than me.) For working around lots of scons issues, most > of > the SConstruct file is plain python anyway. > > Best regards, > Alexander > --------- > > On Thursday 08 Jan 2015 18:06:59 R. Andrew Ohana wrote: >> On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 5:38 PM, kcrisman <kcris...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> All our dependencies have proper support for Python 3, >>> >>> >>> What about 17 and 18 at http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/15530? >> >> Yes, you are right. I had forgotten about those when I posted this. 17 >> (scons) only exists because of 18 (polybori) and csage, although there has >> been some work to move off of scons for csage. I'm not really familiar with >> the polybori situation, other than from the outside, the project appears to >> be dead, so we would have to handle that somehow. Certainly, most of sage >> *should* be usable without polybori, so we *should* be able to get >> something up and running without it (considering how messed up the imports >> are in sage though, it wouldn't surprise me if it would take a ton of work >> to make sage usable without polybori). >> >> -- >> >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >>> "sage-devel" group. >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >>> email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >>> To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. >>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. >>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "sage-devel" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
