#6491: [with spkg, positive review pending] Modular Cohomology Rings of Finite
p-Groups
-------------------------------+--------------------------------------------
Reporter: SimonKing | Owner: SimonKing
Type: enhancement | Status: assigned
Priority: major | Milestone: sage-4.1.1
Component: optional packages | Keywords: cohomology ring finite p-group
Reviewer: | Author: Simon King
Merged: |
-------------------------------+--------------------------------------------
Comment(by wdj):
Replying to [comment:17 SimonKing]:
> Hi!
>
> Before I go to the remote place, I can use the internet for a couple of
hours.
>
> I am kind of reluctant to accept the positive review, yet. Perhaps it
should be "positive review pending"?
That is fine but I don't see how any of the issues you raise below are
important for the inclusion as an *optional* spkg, which is what this
ticket is about.
>
> We have the following issues.
>
> __Licence__
>
> - As much as I understood, the MeatAxe Licence should be fixed.
'''Must''' or '''should'''?
Since Meataxe is GPLv2 and you compile against it, your package is GPLv2.
I assume you are releasing your *code* under GPLv2+, but the package
itself inherits what Meataxe is. So, '''must''' is only if you want your
optional package to by GPLv2+. There are all kinds of licenses in the
optional spkg's though.
> - You said that I should put my data base tar file under a certain
licence. I assume this hods both for the stuff included with the package
(groups of order 64) and in the internet (groups of order 128 and 243).
But HOW can I put them under a licence?
>
Why not ad a COPYING or license.txt or README file to
SAGE_ROOT/local/pGroupCohomology, asssuming that is where the
DBs are? That's the obvious thing.
BTW, if you type
{{{
Type: instance
Base Class: pGroupCohomology.CohomologyRingFactory
String Form: <pGroupCohomology.CohomologyRingFactory instance at
0x58075a8>
Namespace: Interactive
File: /home/wdj/sagefiles/sage-4.1.rc1/local/lib/python2.6/site-
packages/pGroupCohomology/__init__.py
Docstring:
Constructor for modular cohomology rings of finite p-groups
<snip>
}}}
Are you happy with that File descriptor?
> __Porting__
>
> Good news is that it works with Ubuntu. But did anybody try with OS X or
on Motorola processors?
I thought I mentioned that I also tried this on an intel macbook running
10.4.11.
Sorry, I thought I did. Install went fine on an intel macbook.
>
> __Tests__
>
> Did you run the test suite?
Do you mean
sage: !/home/wdj/sagefiles/p_group_cohomology-1.0/spkg-check ?
In general, I have very little idea where in the SAGE tree different parts
of the spkg get loaded.
In one of your earlier comments you mentioned this script but with no
indication of where to find it. I had to separately tar xjvf the spkg and
run that script since I couldn't find it in any "obvious" places in the
Sage tree.
I got
{{{
...
Writing doc strings to '/home/wdj/.sage//temp/hera/7169/RecDoctest.py' and
running 'sage -t -long -verbose'...
All tests passed!
SUMMARY
-------
Some doc tests failed or where missing.
Please check '*_test.log', with * in ['cohomology']
Total time: 9.30 min
}}}
This gives no idea where {{{cohomology_test.log}}} is located but I found
it. See
http://sage.math.washington.edu/home/wdj/patches/cohomology_test-
amd64-ubuntu904.log
for the ubuntu test log and
http://sage.math.washington.edu/home/wdj/patches/cohomology_test-
mac0s10.4.11.log
for the intel macbook test log. In the ubuntu test log example_51 and
example_7
had failures. I didn't understand the error but it seems to be a problem
with Singular.
The macbook behaved better (only example_51 was listed as failing) but
again the
problem was with Singular.
>
> __More Features__
>
> Thank you for pointing me to CRIME! It has implemented the Massey
products. I think I would just need a day to implement it as well. But due
to the expected shortcomings with internet in the near future, it might be
a longer way.
>
> So, what should I do when I have new features? Open a new ticket, with a
version 1.1 of the spkg? Or (as long as the package did not become
optional yet) stay on ''this'' ticket?
>
When version 1.1 is ready, open up a new ticket, describe the changes and
post the new spkg. With new features, I guess you should have new
doctests?
In any case, I think for an optional package, this is fine. If you want to
call it "pending" and make more changes then that is fine too.
> Best regards,
> Simon
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/6491#comment:18>
Sage <http://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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
