#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 SimonKing):
Hi!
It turned out that there is some internet access here, so, to some extent
I can work.
Replying to [comment:22 wdj]:
...
> Yes, the license of your package is still an issue. You can either (a)
rewrite SPKG.txt to say it is GPLv2, or (b) ask any surviving Meataxe
people you can find (maybe Alexander Hulpke or Thomas Breuer or other GAP
people know who to contact?) if they will relicense or dual-licence it as
GPLv2+ (at least the part of it that you use), then revise SPKG.txt after
that.
David Green took care of it and asked in Aachen.
> It would be helpful to have a README or something which explains where
what parts of your package go in what part of the Sage tree and what
license they have.
I think nothing goes to the Sage tree, where I understand that "Sage
tree" is everything inside SAGE_ROOT/devel/sage/
But a README might indeed be helpful.
> Well, I'm used to seeing __init__.py as a file which users don't read
which imports stuff from other modules that readers do read
(__mymodule__.py is more private than mymodule.py). Also, it's not very
descriptive. Still, it's up to you.
I see. You are right, I should put the code for CohomologyRing into a
different file (say, cohomology_constructor.py), so that __init__.py only
contains the import statement "from
pGroupCohomology.cohomology_constructor import CohomologyRing". In that
way, it is still possible for the user to do "from pGroupCohomology import
CohomologyRing". OK, I will do so.
> > But something in the Ubuntu log irritates me: There is one example
where a wrong ring structure is found.
> > Currently I have no time to analyse it further.
> >
> > By the way, there also is a test suite spkg-check-details, that does
the doc tests in a different way.
>
>
> I posted the shell history to
> http://sage.math.washington.edu/home/wdj/patches/cohomology-test-
details.log
> If I read it correctly, all tests passed.
Good! Was it on Ubuntu?
spkg-check-details does the same tests as spkg-check, but it does them one
after the other. In particular, sage, singular and gap are re-started for
each test. That might explain why the Singular error disappeared.
But I see that the last line says "some items have no doc test". I just
realise that spkg-check-details should tell the user that (if there are
errors or missing doc tests) the script produces a file "test.log" in the
current directory that gives details for all doc test errors and that
gives a list of all items without doc tests. Could you please post the
test.log?
Things to do for me:
- Replace spkg-check by spkg-check-details, since it avoids some trouble
with Singular.
- There should be a pointer to test.log.
> > So, I think it would not hurt to keep it pending until my return end
of July.
> > Or are there different opinions?
>
> No problem. The end of July is fine.
And then probably also including the Massey products!
Cheers,
Simon
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/6491#comment:23>
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
