#9894: Group cohomology spkg, version 2.1.2
-------------------------------------------------------+--------------------
Reporter: SimonKing | Owner:
Type: enhancement | Status:
needs_review
Priority: major | Milestone:
sage-5.0
Component: optional packages | Resolution:
Keywords: modular group cohomology solaris t2 | Work issues:
Report Upstream: N/A | Reviewers:
Karl-Dieter Crisman
Authors: Simon King | Merged in:
Dependencies: | Stopgaps:
-------------------------------------------------------+--------------------
Comment (by jhpalmieri):
Replying to [comment:57 SimonKing]:
> Replying to [comment:56 jhpalmieri]:
> > A few questions:
> >
> > - Is it possible (and easy) to build the documentation locally? If
so, it would be nice to implement that in spkg-install, using the
environment variable `SAGE_SPKG_INSTALL_DOCS` (see #10823).
>
> Currently, it is not possible.
Perhaps for a future version you might consider it, depending on how much
work it would be. A simple short-term solution would be to just include
html docs in the spkg; they shouldn't add too much to the size. (Maybe a
top-level directory `docs`, not under revision control.)
> > - Also, can you provide the code for producing an on-line database,
in case people want to host their own?
> Do you think the following syntax (to be implemented) would be a nice
addition?
> {{{
> sage: H = CohomologyRing(G, to_database="/path/to/database_folder")
> sage: H.make() # would compute the ring and create an entry in the
database_folder
> }}}
Yes, that sounds good. Maybe also a list somewhere of which specific
calculations would make a good database.
> > - I think a better way to disable parallel building is `export
MAKE="$MAKE -j 1"`. Appending the `-j 1` at the end should override any
earlier `-j` flags. But this would require testing. I also think that
since you call `make` instead of `$MAKE`, maybe this is irrelevant anyway?
>
> Do I? I thought I had changed it into `$MAKE`. At least, I had the
intention at some point.
The spkg-install file says, for example
{{{
MAKE=make; export MAKE;
cd src
make
}}}
> > pGroupCohomology.mtx.MTX.__hash__:
> > sage -t -optional -long
"/export/home/palmieri/.sage/temp/hawk/17706/dir_0/file_14.py"
> > **********************************************************************
> > File "/export/home/palmieri/.sage/temp/hawk/17706/dir_0/file_14.py",
line 8:
> > sage: if sys.byteorder == 'little':
> > print hash(M) == Integer(7606091044269354279) # indirect
doctest
> > else:
> > print hash(M) == Integer(1060097699) # indirect doctest
>
> That's the ''old'' version of the test. Yesterday, I posted an update of
the spkg, which contains a different (machine independent) test for the
hash. Could you reforce installation, making sure you get the current
version?
You're right, I don't know how that happened. Anyway, all tests passed
this time, including the internet ones.
I'm going to browse the source a bit more, but it all looks very good
right now.
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/9894#comment:58>
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.
