#6491: [with spkg, needs review] 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):
Replying to [comment:32 wdj]:
> 1.
> {{{
> 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.
> }}}
> You didn't do this, as far as I can tell.
Yes, after thinking it over, my impression was that the old solution was
better: Loading the package would still require some initialisation - no
matter whether it is done in __init__.py or somewhere else. So, there is
no gain in startup time. And if the user is importing by "from
pGroupCohomology import CohomologyRing", but in fact the code is in
"pGrouCohomology.SomeSubmodule", the user might be confused.
> 2. There is no indication that I can find that you got permission to
license meataxe as GPLv2+.
As stated in SPKG.txt (the usual place where those informations are
provided), the package contains the original meataxe sources of the
version 2.2.4 (folder "mtxoriginal"), including the COPYING file, that I
also provide in our modified meataxe version (folder "src/mtx2.2.4"). And
the documentation refers to the MeatAxe download page, where version 2.2.4
(differing from 2.2.3 only by its licence) is available. I don't see how
the licence could be made clearer than by providing the original sources.
> 3. The package is (IMHO) very disorganized. Files are scattered over
various directories without rhyme or reason.
I think it is very clear. There is "mtxoriginal/", providing the original
source of a third party package. There is "src/", which contains all code
that is used in the package. The package is based on three components:
Meataxe (c-code, in "mtx2.2.4/"), some executables written in C for
computing some basic data ("present/"), and the Cython modules (in
"pGroupCohomology/"), together with some c-files the cython code is linked
with ("pGroupCohomology/c_sources/").
> I cannot find a guide in the docs as to how the unpacking is done, so
one can find the source and read it if one desired details on the
algorithms implemented.
Of course it is not covered in the docs of the package, because unpacking
an spkg is something that a user usually doesn't. And a user who ''does''
unpack it for reading the code is usually aware of the fact that any spkg
can be opened with "tar -xjf"; this is pointed out in the Sage developer's
guide.
> (For example, why not just put everything in python2.6/site-packages?)
I don't understand the question. Of course, neither Cython code nor c-code
is supposed to be in python2.6/site-packages! Nor are the executables of
meataxe and the additional executables from "present/". And the compiled
extension modules ''are'', of course, in python2.6/site-packages.
> 4. I cannot find the test files spkg-check in the sage tree. Or do you
expact people who want to run tests to download your package and unpack it
separately (as I did before)?
Just read the relevant chapter in the developer's guide,
[http://www.sagemath.org/doc/developer/producing_spkgs.html].
spkg-check is not supposed to be in the Sage tree.
Read also a thread on sage-devel, where I raised some related questions,
at [http://groups.google.com/group/sage-
devel/browse_thread/thread/5e286c6ec0d90879/40e55782bbb0e144?lnk=gst&q
=spkg-check#40e55782bbb0e144]. I think that this thread makes clear that
if a user wants to test the package then (s)he is supposed to open it and
run the test suite provided in the package.
Best regards,
Simon
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/6491#comment:34>
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
