Re: Re: SAGE packages for Debian
Global media blogs games apps google maps hello world media world largest social media hate crime Sent from my iPhone
Re: SAGE packages for Debian
On Thu, 15 May 2008, Ondrej Certik wrote: On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 10:16 PM, Timothy G Abbott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That's probably a good plan, especially since the sandbox is apparently going to be eliminated eventually (and it sounds like arpack and delaunay are on the list of things likely to be merged into mainline scipy) http://jarrodmillman.blogspot.com/2007/12/end-of-scipy-sandbox.html I'll send the python-scipy maintainers a note and see what they think. Is Sage really depending on the sandbox? I think it's not a good idea to depend on something that is just a sandbox. :) Depending on is perhaps not quite the right term, but SAGE does include these sandbox packages in its standard distribution, and its standard doctests will fail if the sandbox packages are not installed. -Tim Abbott -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: SAGE packages for Debian
Yes, I realize there is not much time left. I'm also quite busy for the next week or two, after which point I should have time to work on this again. The precise release timeline is very helpful. I won't be able to reasonably maintain this much software in Debian in the long term, but I will try to get everything into a release-ready condition before the Lenny freeze. The main task that needs doing is generating patches fixing the various (shared) library issues in upstream packages. Help with this, especially during the next couple weeks, could be very high-impact work, since ideally we want to give the upstream time to do a release after applying the patches we generate to fix their library versioning issues. Send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] to coordinate this, as we've done the relevant work for a couple of the packages already. The other help that this effort needs is people to maintain these packages in Debian. The list of packages needing maintainers is available from http://bugs.debian.org/455292; looking at the individual package page RFP bugs blocking #455292, you can see whether each package is essentially ready for upload or require additional work (which I detail in each case). If you're a Debian maintainer or developer and want to maintain any of these packages, feel free to take the packages, set yourself as maintainer, and upload them. -Tim Abbott On Sun, 11 May 2008, Holger Levsen wrote: Hi, wow, great! You're aware that you need to be done in just a bit more than six weeks to achieve your goal of being part of lenny? http://release.debian.org/emails/release-update-200801 regards, Holger -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: SAGE packages for Debian
On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 10:16 PM, Timothy G Abbott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That's probably a good plan, especially since the sandbox is apparently going to be eliminated eventually (and it sounds like arpack and delaunay are on the list of things likely to be merged into mainline scipy) http://jarrodmillman.blogspot.com/2007/12/end-of-scipy-sandbox.html I'll send the python-scipy maintainers a note and see what they think. Is Sage really depending on the sandbox? I think it's not a good idea to depend on something that is just a sandbox. :) Anyway, as the comaintainer of python-scipy, I think there is no problem creating couple more packages for this in DPMT and removing them when python-scipy has this functionality. Ondrej -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: SAGE packages for Debian
Hi, wow, great! You're aware that you need to be done in just a bit more than six weeks to achieve your goal of being part of lenny? http://release.debian.org/emails/release-update-200801 regards, Holger pgpanKqExinsP.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: SAGE packages for Debian
On Tue, May 06, 2008 at 02:44:04AM -0400, Timothy G Abbott wrote: Packages with no problems worse than missing man pages: python-arpack (from the scipy sandbox) python-delaunay (from the scipy sandbox) I guess these can be handled by python-modules team that already maintains python-scipy? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: SAGE packages for Debian
That's probably a good plan, especially since the sandbox is apparently going to be eliminated eventually (and it sounds like arpack and delaunay are on the list of things likely to be merged into mainline scipy) http://jarrodmillman.blogspot.com/2007/12/end-of-scipy-sandbox.html I'll send the python-scipy maintainers a note and see what they think. -Tim Abbott On Wed, 7 May 2008, Riku Voipio wrote: On Tue, May 06, 2008 at 02:44:04AM -0400, Timothy G Abbott wrote: Packages with no problems worse than missing man pages: python-arpack (from the scipy sandbox) python-delaunay (from the scipy sandbox) I guess these can be handled by python-modules team that already maintains python-scipy? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: SAGE packages for Debian
Since I didn't hear any objections, I went ahead and filed the RFP bug reports (RFP rather than ITP bugs because I'm looking for help maintaining them -- though maybe RFA or RFH would have been clearer) as I described in my original email. I noted this problem in the Singular copyright file on the relevant bug report. Thanks for pointing it out. -Tim Abbott On Tue, 6 May 2008, Bernhard R. Link wrote: * Timothy G Abbott [EMAIL PROTECTED] [080506 08:47]: singular [no soname] Oh, nice to see that the omalloc license issue is finally solved. The debian/copyright of that package lack a bit deal however, as it does not list the copyright holders of the subpackages. Hochachtungsvoll, Bernhard R. Link -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
SAGE packages for Debian
I've been working on packaging for Debian SAGE (http://sagemath.org), a large free mathematics software conglomeration that is competing with proprietary mathematical software systems such as Mathematica, Matlab, Maple, and Magma (Debian bug #455292). This has been a rather large effort because a major contribution of SAGE is providing an excellent ipython-base interface to a number of other free software mathematics libraries; the SAGE distribution comes with some 71 dependencies, of which only around 2/3 are available in Debian already. I currently have a working apt repository from which one can apt-get install sagemath (some details on the repository are available at http://wiki.sagemath.org/DebianSAGE) with some 26 source packages in it that I created for the SAGE dependencies. The repository also contains modified versions of various Debian packages with quick workarounds for bugs #472392, #474080, #474083, #459200. The packages are tested to the extent that I have run a full set of SAGE doctests against them with two different SAGE releases, and they largely seem to work (though there are definitely a number of bugs remaining). However, while it is nice to have a repository that people who want to use SAGE can add to their sources.list, it would be far better for SAGE to be available in Debian (I think having SAGE packages ready for lenny is a reasonable goal). The primary problem that makes my packages potentially unsuitable for uploading to Debian now is many of them may violate Debian library policy: - shared libraries whose soname is 0.0.0 (suggesting the upstream may not actually be doing versioning) - static libraries compiled with -fPIC (something strongly discouraged in the library packaging guide) - shared libraries that don't have versioning at all (clearly a bug) For the shared libraries that are missing sonames entirely, I am in contact with the upstream developers and they are working on getting some sort of shared library versioning implemented (the SAGE developers are very supportive of this effort and have offered to help the upstream developers with some of these library versioning issues). Below I list new source packages categorized by roughly how ready they are for being uploaded to the Debian archive. Many of them have description-contains-homepage and out-of-date-standards-version 3.7.2 lintian warnings because I wrote most of the control files on etch, and several have slightly more serious binary-without-manpage warnings. The secondary problem with getting these 26 source packages into Debian is that I simply don't have the time to responsibly maintain 26 source packages in Debian. So, I'm looking for people and teams in Debian to adopt some of these SAGE dependencies and upload them in time for Lenny. My guess is the right Debian protocol for coordinating this is for me to file RFP bugs for all the packages below, linking in each to my existing draft packaging and mark those RFP bugs as all blocking #455292. But I'd appreciate feedback on this plan before I file 26 bug reports. If you're interested in helping maintain SAGE and its dependencies in Debian, you should join us on the [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list (I have no objection to eventually migrating to a lists.debian.org list in the future, but that's what we've been using thus far). Any feedback or suggestions would also be greatly appreciated. -Tim Abbott Packages with no problems worse than missing man pages: python-arpack (from the scipy sandbox) python-delaunay (from the scipy sandbox) flintqs genus2reduction gfan [but depends on cddlib, see below] palp rubiks sympow lcalc polybori Packages with suspicious 0.0.0 sonames: libfplll iml libm4ri [also needs description] givaro linbox-wrap Packages with no shared library whose static library is compiled with -fPIC linbox symmetrica tachyon cddlib Packages that have clear library policy issues: eclib [no soname] flint [no soname] libzn-poly [no soname, though I've sent a patch for this upstream] ntl [no soname, though I've sent a patch for this upstream] singular [no soname] Packages that have other oustanding issues: guava [binaries under /usr/share/gap; also many lintian warnings will be fixed in the 3.5 upstream release] sagemath [numerous isuses] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: SAGE packages for Debian
* Timothy G Abbott [EMAIL PROTECTED] [080506 08:47]: singular [no soname] Oh, nice to see that the omalloc license issue is finally solved. The debian/copyright of that package lack a bit deal however, as it does not list the copyright holders of the subpackages. Hochachtungsvoll, Bernhard R. Link -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: SAGE packages for Debian
Timothy G Abbott wrote: I've been working on packaging for Debian SAGE (http://sagemath.org), a large free mathematics software conglomeration that is competing with proprietary mathematical software systems such as Mathematica, Matlab, Maple, and Magma (Debian bug #455292). [...] I currently have a working apt repository from which one can apt-get install sagemath (some details on the repository are available at http://wiki.sagemath.org/DebianSAGE) with some 26 source packages in it that I created for the SAGE dependencies. The repository also contains modified versions of various Debian packages with quick workarounds for bugs #472392, #474080, #474083, #459200. That is awesome news and I applaud your seriously monumental efforts! (By the way, #459200 was closed on April 27.) If you're interested in helping maintain SAGE and its dependencies in Debian, you should join us on the [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list (I have no objection to eventually migrating to a lists.debian.org list in the future, but that's what we've been using thus far). Any feedback or suggestions would also be greatly appreciated. I was going to suggest setting up an Alioth project, but on closer look I see that the Sage Wiki page mentions that you don't want to use alioth just yet. Also, let me suggest that you re-send your email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- a lot of science and math folks read that list who might not read debian-devel very often. best regards, -- Kevin B. McCarty [EMAIL PROTECTED] WWW: http://www.starplot.org/ WWW: http://people.debian.org/~kmccarty/ GPG: public key ID 4F83C751 signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: SAGE packages for Debian
On Tue, 6 May 2008, Kevin B. McCarty wrote: I was going to suggest setting up an Alioth project, but on closer look I see that the Sage Wiki page mentions that you don't want to use alioth just yet. Well, that text was written in November, and I think it was a good choice at the time. But it may be worth reconsidering. Also, let me suggest that you re-send your email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- a lot of science and math folks read that list who might not read debian-devel very often. I've now done that. -Tim Abbott -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
