#13364: Upgrade Maxima to 5.29.1
-------------------------------------+--------------------------------------
Reporter: kcrisman | Owner: tbd
Type: enhancement | Status: new
Priority: major | Milestone: sage-5.6
Component: packages | Resolution:
Keywords: maxima spkg | Work issues: fix doctests, build with
latest ECL, fix `spkg-install`
Report Upstream: N/A | Reviewers: Karl-Dieter Crisman,
François Bissey, Leif Leonhardy
Authors: Jean-Pierre Flori | Merged in:
Dependencies: #13324 | Stopgaps:
-------------------------------------+--------------------------------------
Comment (by jpflori):
Replying to [comment:27 leif]:
> Replying to [comment:26 jpflori]:
> > The fact that this spkg would not install the maxima library (and the
error was undetected) was expected.
> > That is what I meant by "build with latest ECL".
>
> ?
I mean the fact that the produced file for Maxima in Lisp libary mode is
no longer maxima.fasb but maxima.system.fasb and its not because of the
updated Maxima, but of the updated ECL.
>
> > And thanks for finding out why the error was undetected!!!
> > And yes the new library file is the maxima.system.fasb.
> > See
> > http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?msg_id=30232028
> > I've not replied yet but I don't think we need to ask more work from
upstream adsf-bundle.
> > We'll just change the filename in spkg-install.
>
> I just manually copied `maxima.system.fasb` to
`$SAGE_LOCAL/lib/ecl/maxima.fas`, hoping that this was correct.
(Currently running `ptestlong` with Sage 5.5.rc0 on Ubuntu 10.04.4 x86,
i.e., an old Pentium4 with currently just 1 GB RAM, which will take
ages...)
>
> Or should we keep the new name (`.fas` or `.fasb`?), probably having to
make changes elsewhere?
I thing we keep maxima.fas as the name of the file in the Sage library
($SAGE_???/lib/ecl/).
>
> [[BR]]
>
> > The makeinfo thing reminds me of something.
> > It should definitely not be required.
> > I think the solution was to touch some files, but I guess something
changed in Maxima and the file we touch are not sufficient now.
>
> Presumably yes, I was thinking of the same... (Although IMHO
`configure` should have checked whether `makeinfo` is available in
advance, in order to eventually skip a few things later.)
>
> Probably similar for some autotools-generated files, although at least
some of the warnings were present in previous spkg logs as well. (I
personally don't mind, but these may annoy a few users actually reading or
grepping the logs, or watching the build process... We occasionally get
"needless" questions regarding such on the IRC.)
>
>
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/13364#comment:28>
Sage <http://www.sagemath.org>
Sage: Creating a Viable Open Source Alternative to Magma, Maple, Mathematica,
and MATLAB
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-trac" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/sage-trac?hl=en.
