#8523: Optional package p_group_cohomology-1.2 fails to install on Solaris 10
SPARC, as well as Debian Linux x86/x86_64 and MacOSX 10.5 (PPC)
---------------------------------+------------------------------------------
Reporter: drkirkby | Owner: SimonKing
Type: defect | Status: needs_work
Priority: major | Milestone: sage-4.4
Component: optional packages | Keywords:
Author: | Upstream: N/A
Reviewer: | Merged:
Work_issues: |
---------------------------------+------------------------------------------
Changes (by dimpase):
* status: needs_review => needs_work
Comment:
Replying to [comment:11 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.
Apparently since the release of your spkg there was a semantics change in
some Sage scripts that now causes us this headache.
>
> 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.
there is a ready binary install for sage.math, you can just grab it
instead, and try out on sage.math (not on boxen)
http://sage.math.washington.edu/home/release/sage-4.3.4/sage-4.3.4-sage.math.washington.edu-x86_64-Linux.tar.gz
This would be much faster.
>
> 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.
Right.
> 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?
p_group_cohomology-1.2.p0 seems to be the proper name.
> And who is giving a positive review? :)
That's a tough one :-)
well, if you do not mention my name in the changes then I won't be a co-
author, and will be able to review, IMHO.
We could also ask Dave, the initiator of the ticket...
Best,
Dima
>
> Best regards,
>
> Simon
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/8523#comment:14>
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.
