#9808: Upgrade numpy to 1.4.1 and scipy to 0.8
------------------------------------------------+---------------------------
Reporter: maldun | Owner: maldun
Type: task | Status: needs_review
Priority: major | Milestone: sage-4.6
Component: packages | Keywords: numpy, scipy
Author: Stefan Reiterer, Francois Bissey | Upstream: N/A
Reviewer: Karl-Dieter Crisman | Merged:
Work_issues: |
------------------------------------------------+---------------------------
Changes (by newvalueoldvalue):
* author: Stefan Reiterer => Stefan Reiterer, Francois Bissey
Comment:
Replying to [comment:136 fbissey]:
> Well thanks Karl! Your testing was very useful. Since I have contributed
to bits and pieces
> I think I should had myself as an author. But most of the heavy lifting
as been done by maldun.
>
I think you are right. So I allowed myself to set you as co-author, since
this whole thing wouldn't work without your help =)
> So what's left is the question of whether we go for numpy-1.4.1 and
leave minor archs unsupported
> for a little bit. Or we wait for 1.5.1, which works on the minor archs
in question and will play
> well with cython.
>
I would suggest the following: If numpy 1.5.1 doesn't come out before Sage
4.6. let's take 1.4.1 (since ppc linux is not on the current supported
list; see readme.tex of sage)
I will start this weekend with correcting things of 1.5.0, since the
current errors are new warnings, and I'm quite sure numpy 1.5.1 will throw
those as well.
When numpy 1.5.1 is out before 4.6. I will try to pack it, and then
hopefully it is done in no time, since it shared the same probs.
> As an aside I have already pushed the upgrade in sage-on-gentoo (to
avoid tree rote, we already
> have to keep two old packages that are otherwise removed from Gentoo)
and we want to avoid that
> kind of stuff as much as possible. So the current code is out there and
used by a few people.
>
> After that there are question of details. In spkg-install I have set FC
to ${SAGE_LOCAL}/bin/sage_fortran, with the idea that it was basically
calling "gfortran -fpic" or the g95 equivalent. We have been talking about
that very subject on sage-devel recently. Is it the best way to go? If one
uses sunstudio (and I am planning to give a go) the correct flag would be
-Kpic but would it be set up properly in sage_fortran? I doubt it.
>
> So what would be the best course of action? Using the variable
SAGE_FORTRAN for now and ask it
> to be set with the proper pic flag and hopefully drop it later on when
FC is the mainstay?
The question is how fast this change with the fortran compiler is done. I
think we should wait a little bit now.
My question is: should this given a positive review, or is something still
missing?
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/9808#comment:137>
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.
