#8523: Optional package p_group_cohomology-1.2 fails to install on Solaris 10
SPARC
---------------------------------+------------------------------------------
Reporter: drkirkby | Owner: SimonKing
Type: defect | Status: needs_review
Priority: major | Milestone: sage-4.4
Component: optional packages | Keywords:
Author: | Upstream: N/A
Reviewer: | Merged:
Work_issues: |
---------------------------------+------------------------------------------
Comment(by SimonKing):
Replying to [comment:9 dimpase]:
Sure, I do talk about 1.2 (and I was baffled by what you wrote). And 1.2
is broken, it does not install on any Sage 4.3.4 I have
Really? OK, then something needs to be done.
It did compile on several platforms. Personally, I tested Suse linux (two
different machines at my university), sage-math, and Intel mac (Darwin).
David Joyner and William Stein tested it on various other platforms, like
Ubuntu. The issues found there had been sorted out.
For instance, one compiled from source on boxen.math [[BR]]
OK, then I will try to build sage on boxen and see what happens. I'll
reply later what happens.
Please see above. I don't have access to SUSE systems, but it fails on a
range of Ubuntu and Debian Linuxes, as well as on Solaris (Sparc) and on
MacOSX 10.5 (PPC), all of these with Sage 4.3.4.[[BR]]
OK, these had been tested with previous sage versions. So, now the picture
becomes clearer: The package became broken by upgrading sage, and I think
this is what you said.
> as I explained in another reply, to bring it in line to what you wrote
in SPKG.txt. By the way, I was pointed out few times by spkg reviewers
that having hg-"?"-marked files in the spkg is not good, and they insisted
on fixing this.
See my reply there: These files, I think, do not belong under version
control, but making this clear by .hgignore might be a good idea.
> well, 2.0 is still at least weeks away, and then reviewing, etc etc.
Meanwhile there is a broken spkg on the list of optional packages, and the
fix is ready. So, please, please, let us fix it, and be done with. Best,
Dima
Right, that makes sense.
So, I will test on boxen. If successful, I will probably then do the
following:
* Adopt your changes to spkg-install
* Mention these changes in SPKG.txt
* Putting mtxoriginal under .hgignore
* Ask whether this change can be put into the sage repository.
The question is, though: Should this still be p_group_cohomology-1.2, or
better p_group_cohomology-1.2.1? And who is giving a positive review? :)
Best regards,
Simon
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/8523#comment:11>
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.
