Re: [sage-devel] Re: Cannot build sage 10.4.beta6 [fflas_ffpack-2.5.0]

On Wed, May 22, 2024 at 4:48 AM Edgar Costa wrote: > > I ended up only needing the first combined with `--with-system-flint=no` can you skip `--with-system-flint=no` with your latest Homebrew's flint 3.1.3 ? > > On Tuesday, May 21, 2024 at 9:53:07 AM UTC-4 Kwankyu Lee wrote: >> >> You need >>

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Standard/Recommended practices for adding codes with third-party libraries into Sage codebase?

On Mon, May 20, 2024 at 3:43 AM Matthias Koeppe wrote: > > On Sunday, May 19, 2024 at 12:53:25 PM UTC-7 Jing Guo wrote: > > In the past few months I have been working on a Sage library for counting > graph homomorphisms: https://github.com/guojing0/count-graph-homs (It's still > updating, hence

Re: [sage-devel] Re: approve github actions

On 15 May 2024 02:14:05 BST, David Roe wrote: >On Tue, May 14, 2024 at 9:13 PM Dima Pasechnik wrote: > >> >> >> On 14 May 2024 22:55:01 BST, "julian...@fsfe.org" >> wrote: >> >I granted "write" permissions to you. That seems

Re: [sage-devel] Re: approve github actions

On 14 May 2024 22:55:01 BST, "julian...@fsfe.org" wrote: >I granted "write" permissions to you. That seems to be the required >permission to approve workflow runs. IIRC, such permissions are automatic for the members of triage team. Could you check that Martin is there? > >Can you check that

Re: [sage-devel] Re: New labels v: mimimal, v: small ... on pull requests

On Tue, May 14, 2024 at 1:48 AM Matthias Koeppe wrote: > > On Sunday, May 12, 2024 at 6:50:05 PM UTC-7 Travis Scrimshaw wrote: > > That model is not how we have worked as a community, nor do I think it is a > productive way to run a smaller developer community such as ours. > > > I'm not sure

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Governance proposal: Maintainer/code-owner model for .ci, .devcontainer, .github/workflows, tox.ini

On Sunday, May 12, 2024 at 4:42:42 PM UTC+1 Matthias Koeppe wrote: On Friday, May 10, 2024 at 4:19:14 PM UTC-7 julian...@fsfe.org wrote: If I read your proposal correctly, it is about removing review from changes made by "maintainers" [...] That's right -- for the specified files. Mostly,

Re: [sage-devel] Re: New labels v: mimimal, v: small ... on pull requests

On 9 May 2024 22:46:17 BST, Travis Scrimshaw wrote: >I am *very* strongly opposed to these tags. Their cutoffs are arbitrary nor >they serve no useful purpose as far as I can tell. To this point, they do >not reflect the difficulty of a review; in fact, they are at best >counterproductive

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Governance proposal: Maintainer/code-owner model for .ci, .devcontainer, .github/workflows, tox.ini

I've already said while the previous version of this was discussed, is that it's a huge mess to have different commit rights for different parts of the tree, and I proposed to spin the CI into a separate repository, as an alternative which simplifies a lot of things. Dima On Wed, May 8, 2024 at

[sage-devel] Re: testing optional packages

As I already told Marc, one should use "pytest" rather than "sage -t" - for obvious reasons: Sage has very own testing system, and one should not expect it to be able to test non-Sage code. On Monday, April 29, 2024 at 1:08:01 PM UTC+1 Marc Culler wrote: > I don't know what the expectations

Re: [sage-devel] Re: wasm

It's interesting to compare this with the development by cocalc people, cowasm Perhaps William can explain the differences. On 30 April 2024 18:00:26 BST, Matthias Koeppe wrote: >Hi Doris, >porting Sage to pyodide is in progress, see

Re: [sage-devel] Incorrect result for `sum(1/factorial(n**2),n,1,oo)`

On Fri, Apr 26, 2024 at 2:24 PM Georgi Guninski wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 2:27 AM Dima Pasechnik wrote: > > > > I've filed https://sourceforge.net/p/maxima/bugs/4262/ > > > > Is maxima supported? > There is no progress on their bug system for mor

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Urgent and important: Please vote on disputed PR #36964 (next step of the modularization project)

On Thu, Apr 25, 2024 at 4:36 PM wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 25, 2024 at 07:03:29AM -0700, Marc Culler wrote: > > On Thursday, April 25, 2024 at 8:28:48 AM UTC-5 Dima Pasechnik wrote: > > > > Essential components of sagelib such as GAP, Singular, don't run on > > native Wi

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Urgent and important: Please vote on disputed PR #36964 (next step of the modularization project)

On 25 April 2024 14:47:35 BST, Marc Culler wrote: >On Thu, Apr 25, 2024 at 8:28 AM Dima Pasechnik wrote: > >> On Thu, Apr 25, 2024 at 1:28 PM Nathan Dunfield >> wrote: >> > >> > On Wednesday, April 24, 2024 at 10:14:09 PM UTC-5 Matthias Koeppe wrote:

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Urgent and important: Please vote on disputed PR #36964 (next step of the modularization project)

On Thu, Apr 25, 2024 at 1:28 PM Nathan Dunfield wrote: > > On Wednesday, April 24, 2024 at 10:14:09 PM UTC-5 Matthias Koeppe wrote: > > Yes, native Windows would clearly be a very important target. > > > As a data point, downloads of our stand-alone SnapPy app, which is about as > high level

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Urgent and important: Please vote on disputed PR #36964 (next step of the modularization project)

On Wed, Apr 24, 2024 at 9:29 PM Nathan Dunfield wrote: > > On Wednesday, April 24, 2024 at 2:26:37 PM UTC-5 Oscar Benjamin wrote: > > Thanks Marc. This seems like a good example of a useful part of Sage > that can be extracted to something much smaller than Sage. > > Presumably though a

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Question: why does /usr/bin/gcc get called during Sage startup?

On Wed, Apr 24, 2024 at 2:11 PM Marc Culler wrote: > > On Wednesday, April 24, 2024 at 8:05:15 AM UTC-5 Dima Pasechnik wrote: > > running Cython in sage prompt or in Sage Jupyter notebook has nothing > to do with -i option. > > > I realize that. But it looked to me like t

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Urgent and important: Please vote on disputed PR #36964 (next step of the modularization project)

On Wed, Apr 24, 2024 at 3:37 PM Marc Culler wrote: > > I think that CyPari ;and CyPari2 provide a relevant example. > > Some background ... CyPari is a PyPi package with binary wheels which > predates and was the starting point for Sage's cypari2 (hence the 2 in the > name). The basis for

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Urgent and important: Please vote on disputed PR #36964 (next step of the modularization project)

On Wed, Apr 24, 2024 at 2:08 PM Kwankyu Lee wrote: > > Wouldn't people in the python world who need a serious amount of math know of > sage anyway, and then, if they cannot rely on all of sage because that is too > large, use, for example, `citation.get_systems` to see whether they can do >

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Question: why does /usr/bin/gcc get called during Sage startup?

On Wed, Apr 24, 2024 at 4:45 AM Marc Culler wrote: > > That was it! > > Thank you Gonzalo; indeed, it helps a lot. And your workaround is fine, > since we don't support the -i option, running Cython in sage prompt or in Sage Jupyter notebook has nothing to do with -i option. One can call

Re: [sage-devel] Question: why does /usr/bin/gcc get called during Sage startup?

On 23 April 2024 19:48:18 BST, Marc Culler wrote: >I discovered, by installing the Sage_macOS app on a pristine macOS system, >that somehow, somewhere, in Sage's startup sequence there is a call to >gcc. This is true whether Sage is being started from a command line or a >notebook. > >On

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Urgent and important: Please vote on disputed PR #36964 (next step of the modularization project)

On 23 April 2024 19:13:44 BST, Matthias Koeppe wrote: >On Tuesday, April 23, 2024 at 11:06:12 AM UTC-7 Dima Pasechnik wrote: > > > >On 23 April 2024 18:41:34 BST, Matthias Koeppe >wrote: >>*$ git blame src/sage/combinat//designs/block_design.py* >> >>f

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Urgent and important: Please vote on disputed PR #36964 (next step of the modularization project)

On 23 April 2024 18:41:34 BST, Matthias Koeppe wrote: >On Tuesday, April 23, 2024 at 10:32:22 AM UTC-7 Dima Pasechnik wrote: > >in >src/sage/combinat//designs/block_design.py > >you can see > >lazy_import('sage.libs.gap.libgap',

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Urgent and important: Please vote on disputed PR #36964 (next step of the modularization project)

On Tue, Apr 23, 2024 at 3:31 PM Matthias Koeppe wrote: > > On Tuesday, April 23, 2024 at 6:14:05 AM UTC-7 Dima Pasechnik wrote: > > On Sun, Apr 21, 2024 at 10:42 PM Matthias Koeppe wrote: > > Let's just go through the list of distribution packages and their > dependencies f

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Urgent and important: Please vote on disputed PR #36964 (next step of the modularization project)

On Sun, Apr 21, 2024 at 10:42 PM Matthias Koeppe wrote: > On Sunday, April 21, 2024 at 2:30:15 AM UTC-7 Martin R wrote: > > Why would you separate mathematics into packages that have no more > external dependencies from others, which at the same time may grow internal > dependencies over time? >

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Urgent and important: Please vote on disputed PR #36964 (next step of the modularization project)

On 20 April 2024 19:34:49 BST, Matthias Koeppe wrote: >On Saturday, April 20, 2024 at 12:56:30 AM UTC-7 Martin R wrote: > >do I understand correctly that common lisp (via maxima) is the main >dependency that prevents sagemath from being pip-installable? > > >No. > >For one, SageMath is

Re: [sage-devel] Re: SingularError in rational_parameterization

I've filed https://github.com/sagemath/sage/issues/37838 On Sat, Apr 20, 2024 at 5:34 PM Dima Pasechnik wrote: > This is due to https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/37495 > Sorry, this is the usual careless reviewing of late, preventing people > from using their own Singular

Re: [sage-devel] Re: SingularError in rational_parameterization

. You can revert the this PR, and re-run ./bootstrap On Saturday, April 20, 2024 at 5:10:41 PM UTC+1 Peter Mueller wrote: > Dima Pasechnik schrieb am Samstag, 20. April 2024 um 17:57:05 UTC+2: > > [...] well, this looks relevant. "any of gmp ntl flint readline mpf

Re: [sage-devel] Re: SingularError in rational_parameterization

On Friday, April 19, 2024 at 12:36:26 PM UTC+1 Peter Mueller wrote: @Dima, thanks, I know that though. Nevertheless, I now started from anew (that is I removed the sage directory and git-cloned sage to make sure that there are no remains causing trouble). After running configure, the script

Re: [sage-devel] Urgent and important: Please vote on disputed PR #36964 (next step of the modularization project)

Hi Volker, On Sat, Apr 20, 2024 at 10:22 AM Volker Braun wrote: > Yes in a perfect world, but then you don't get a gold star for satisfying > some purity test. We should just do the minimal amount of work to get us > where we want to be. Lets focus on the direction to go and not too much on >

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Urgent and important: Please vote on disputed PR #36964 (next step of the modularization project)

On 20 April 2024 08:56:30 BST, 'Martin R' via sage-devel wrote: >A follow-up question: do I understand correctly that common lisp (via >maxima) is the main dependency that prevents sagemath from being >pip-installable? pip install sagemath-standard already works in a venv on a box with

Re: [sage-devel] Urgent and important: Please vote on disputed PR #36964 (next step of the modularization project)

Another attempt at derailing the ongoing vote, not unexpected. Besides, Matthias must be really the greatest democrat of all - 1st he blocks a part of electorate from voting at the designated venue, and then invite everyone to vote there. I urge everyone to ignore this alternative vote - to

Re: [sage-devel] VOTE: Revert merged PR with unreviewed dependencies

+1 to reverting the wrong merge On 18 April 2024 16:54:08 BST, David Roe wrote: >Hi all, >Sage has had a review process for over 15 years, but a combination of >recent changes has led to the merging of a PR into sage-10.4.beta3 of a >change (#36964 )

[sage-devel] Urgent proposal: stop merging PRs without consensus, work on a way forward

We urgently need to recover some degree of sanity in how the contributions are merged. The proposal is to halt the current trend of political PR reviews, namely only merge PRs where there is a consensus. This is getting particularly urgent in view of few still disputed PRs being merged, and

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Proposal (redo): Make python_build (and its dependency pyproject_hooks) a standard package

On Mon, Apr 15, 2024 at 10:01 PM François Bissey wrote: > > > On 16/04/24 04:41, kcrisman wrote: > > SageMath has several other long-term contributors who also package > > software. We're all roughly on the same page about what it would take > > to fix the sage installation for end

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Proposal (redo): Make python_build (and its dependency pyproject_hooks) a standard package

On 15 April 2024 22:13:59 BST, John H Palmieri wrote: >+1 to the inclusion of the package, in case anyone views the voting as >still open. > >François, thank you for letting us know about how the ongoing disputes are >affecting you. I feel your pain. John, do you think Francois is the only

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Proposal (redo): Make python_build (and its dependency pyproject_hooks) a standard package

On Mon, Apr 15, 2024 at 5:41 PM kcrisman wrote: > > We (not just Sage, but you and I!) have been discussing this for > almost 15 years. > > > Haha, true! > > > SageMath has several other long-term contributors who also package > software. We're all roughly on the same page about what it would

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Proposal (redo): Make python_build (and its dependency pyproject_hooks) a standard package

On Mon, Apr 15, 2024 at 5:41 PM kcrisman wrote: > > We (not just Sage, but you and I!) have been discussing this for > almost 15 years. > > > Haha, true! > > > SageMath has several other long-term contributors who also package > software. We're all roughly on the same page about what it would

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Proposal (redo): Make python_build (and its dependency pyproject_hooks) a standard package

On Mon, Apr 15, 2024 at 12:21 PM kcrisman wrote: > > I understand that some macOS users are very comfortable with Sage the > distro playing the role of a missing macOS package manager, > > > The real question is about *users* in this case, not developers. I just > got messed up the other day

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Proposal (redo): Make python_build (and its dependency pyproject_hooks) a standard package

On 14 April 2024 19:14:51 BST, Matthias Koeppe wrote: >When I completed the NumFOCUS application yesterday, I had to go through >the past years of sage-devel posts to answer the new question "Where do you >host conversations about project development and governance (e.g. mailing >lists,

Re: [sage-devel] SEGV caused by CTL-C in C/C++ code probably related to signals

On 12 April 2024 12:42:39 CEST, Georgi Guninski wrote: >On Fri, Apr 12, 2024 at 11:35 AM Dima Pasechnik wrote: >> >> This should be fixed by https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/37792 >> please review >> > >I suspect reproducing is hard, since it depends on

Re: [sage-devel] SEGV caused by CTL-C in C/C++ code probably related to signals

This should be fixed by https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/37792 please review On Thursday, April 11, 2024 at 10:19:31 PM UTC+1 dim...@gmail.com wrote: > On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 03:30:34PM +0300, Georgi Guninski wrote: > > Are the non-crashing codepaths in consistent state? > > SEGV is in

Re: [sage-devel] Re: source code tarball?

to be fixed by https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/37791 Please review. Dima On Wednesday, April 10, 2024 at 5:19:56 PM UTC+1 John Cremona wrote: > Thanks, that's the page I was expecting. > > I think it would be a good idea to have that linked more obviously, but I > am not able to make a

Re: [sage-devel] Governance proposal: Maintainer/code-owner model for .ci, .devcontainer, .github/workflows, tox.ini

ut first. Learn about the relevant technological >restrictions. >It does not make sense to develop it here in a question-and-answer game. >In particular, this cannot be done here in this thread about governance; >it's only a distraction. > >Matthias > > >On Thursday, Ap

Re: [sage-devel] Governance proposal: Maintainer/code-owner model for .ci, .devcontainer, .github/workflows, tox.ini

On 11 April 2024 18:06:42 CEST, Matthias Koeppe wrote: >On Thursday, April 11, 2024 at 4:28:12 AM UTC-7 dim...@gmail.com wrote: > >On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 04:23:13PM -0700, Matthias Koeppe wrote: >> On Wednesday, April 10, 2024 at 3:25:16 PM UTC-7 Dima Pasechnik wrote: >&g

Re: [sage-devel] Urgent: Please vote on these "disputed" PRs

On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 6:14 PM Matthias Koeppe wrote: > On Wednesday, April 10, 2024 at 6:49:11 AM UTC-7 julian...@fsfe.org wrote: > > We have carefully reviewed [...] > > We therefore disagree with characterizing opposing opinions as “artificial > friction”, “hostile demands”, or an “attempt

Re: [sage-devel] Governance proposal: Maintainer/code-owner model for .ci, .devcontainer, .github/workflows, tox.ini

On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 11:10 PM Matthias Koeppe wrote: > On Wednesday, April 10, 2024 at 2:40:18 PM UTC-7 Dima Pasechnik wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 9:02 PM Matthias Koeppe > wrote: > > On Wednesday, April 10, 2024 at 1:00:06 PM UTC-7 Dima Pasechnik wrote: > > O

Re: [sage-devel] Governance proposal: Maintainer/code-owner model for .ci, .devcontainer, .github/workflows, tox.ini

On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 9:02 PM Matthias Koeppe wrote: > On Wednesday, April 10, 2024 at 1:00:06 PM UTC-7 Dima Pasechnik wrote: > > On 10 April 2024 19:24:12 CEST, Matthias Koeppe > wrote: > >On Tuesday, April 9, 2024 at 3:28:27 PM UTC-7 Dima Pasechnik wrote: > >

Re: [sage-devel] Urgent: Please vote on these "disputed" PRs

On 10 April 2024 21:50:43 CEST, Matthias Koeppe wrote: >On Monday, April 8, 2024 at 5:19:02 PM UTC-7 Dima Pasechnik wrote: > >On Mon, Apr 8, 2024 at 7:19 PM Matthias Koeppe wrote: > > You will find the comments in these PRs instructive -- also as >illustration f

Re: [sage-devel] Governance proposal: Maintainer/code-owner model for .ci, .devcontainer, .github/workflows, tox.ini

On 10 April 2024 19:24:12 CEST, Matthias Koeppe wrote: >On Tuesday, April 9, 2024 at 3:28:27 PM UTC-7 Dima Pasechnik wrote: > >[...] git submodules [...] > > >git submodules are included in a repository by specific commit sha of the >submodule repo. >So whenever

Re: [sage-devel] Proposal (redo): Make python_build (and its dependency pyproject_hooks) a standard package

n I am OK with making this package standard. I could have just said NO without any explanation. It is technical and not political. Political is your " not welcome" remark. > >On Wednesday, April 10, 2024 at 11:20:14 AM UTC-7 Dima Pasechnik wrote: > >> As in the previous

Re: [sage-devel] Proposal (redo): Make python_build (and its dependency pyproject_hooks) a standard package

As in the previous attempt, I am OK with it becoming standard only if it remains a pip package, a no new "batteries are included". As a matter of fact, there is no point in keeping Python toolchain packages vendored. They can all be pip packages just as well. On 10 April 2024 05:44:36 CEST,

Re: [sage-devel] Governance proposal: Maintainer/code-owner model for .ci, .devcontainer, .github/workflows, tox.ini

On 10 April 2024 03:39:00 CEST, Kwankyu Lee wrote: >How about redefining the meaning of "CI Fix" label: > >1. We designate a person to be the CI manager. >2. For PRs pertaining to the designated directories and files, we add "CI >Fix" label >3. The CI manager has the right to merge PRs with

Re: [sage-devel] Governance proposal: Maintainer/code-owner model for .ci, .devcontainer, .github/workflows, tox.ini

On 10 April 2024 02:04:48 CEST, Matthias Koeppe wrote: >On Tuesday, April 9, 2024 at 4:20:56 PM UTC-7 Dima Pasechnik wrote: > >have a CI/sage-distro repo [...] with all that .github/ etc stuff needed >for CI, including a part of build/ - and checkout sagelib as a submodul

[sage-devel] Re: [sagemath/sage] Restructure `sage.*.all` for modularization, replace relative by absolute imports (PR #36676)

Please whoever is not blocked by the author of this PR, record my -1 vote on this. Yes, this vote has a political element in it. You want to play politics - let us play it. Dima On 10 April 2024 02:40:40 CEST, Tobias Diez wrote: >@tobiasdiez requested your review on: sagemath/sage#36676

Re: [sage-devel] Governance proposal: Maintainer/code-owner model for .ci, .devcontainer, .github/workflows, tox.ini

On 10 April 2024 00:51:33 CEST, Matthias Koeppe wrote: >On Tuesday, April 9, 2024 at 3:28:27 PM UTC-7 Dima Pasechnik wrote: > >How about moving them out of the main Sage tree into separate repos, which >can be accessed from the main tree as git submodules? > > >That doe

Re: [sage-devel] Urgent: Please vote on these "disputed" PRs

I think I will quit the Sage project as soon as decisions on technical merits of PRs and issues will start to be taken in a nakedly political way. I am very strongly against any political overtones in these matters - it reminds me all too well what's wrong is in academia in general. Dima

Re: [sage-devel] Governance proposal: Maintainer/code-owner model for .ci, .devcontainer, .github/workflows, tox.ini

On 9 April 2024 23:11:59 CEST, Matthias Koeppe wrote: >Dear Sage developers: >I propose to consider the following governance change for a small part of >the Sage repository: >1. The directories *.ci, .devcontainer, .github/workflows*. These are >special directories that control the GitHub

Re: [sage-devel] Urgent: Please vote on these "disputed" PRs

On Mon, Apr 8, 2024 at 7:19 PM Matthias Koeppe wrote: > I need your help on these PRs. Please vote. > > Special expertise is not required for voting. You will find the comments > in these PRs instructive -- also as illustration for a (long overdue) > *discussion > about governance and review

Re: [sage-devel] Bug in .subgroup?

On Thu, Apr 4, 2024 at 11:07 AM Dima Pasechnik wrote: > > Yes, it's surely a bug; this example gives |gg|=2^27 (wow!), or a smaller one: > > sage: g=AbelianGroup([2,2]) > sage: gg=g.subgroup(g.list()) > sage: gg.cardinality().factor() # what? > 2^3 > sage: g.cardinality().

Re: [sage-devel] Bug in .subgroup?

Yes, it's surely a bug; this example gives |gg|=2^27 (wow!), or a smaller one: sage: g=AbelianGroup([2,2]) sage: gg=g.subgroup(g.list()) sage: gg.cardinality().factor() # what? 2^3 sage: g.cardinality().factor() 2^2 Maybe related to https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36986 ? On Thu, Apr 4,

Re: [sage-devel] Mysterious .sage behavior

On 31 March 2024 15:23:24 CEST, Marc Culler wrote: >This is a follow-up to a user's query in a Sage_macOS issue. > >The current sage-env script contains the excerpt below. It seems pretty >confusing that Sage would create a directory named .sage/ipython-5.0.0 >when Sage is shipping

Re: [sage-devel] Re: xz/liblzma has been compromised

On Fri, Mar 29, 2024 at 7:42 PM Dima Pasechnik wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 29, 2024 at 7:39 PM Matthias Koeppe > wrote: > > > > Workaround with the Sage distribution: "./configure > > --without-system-liblzma --without-system-xz" > > (Our xz package dat

[sage-devel] testing notebooks with pytest --nbval ?

Is anyone testing their Sage Jupyter notebooks with pytest --nbval ? I imagine that for collections of notebooks this can be used to set up CI tests. Dima -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop

[sage-devel] Re: xz/liblzma has been compromised

and Homebrew. Please upgrade your Homebrew. It should do a downgrade: `brew upgrade` now "upgrades" xz from 5.6.1 -> 5.4.6 On Fri, Mar 29, 2024 at 7:36 PM Dima Pasechnik wrote: > > aand Conda: https://anaconda.org/anaconda/xz shows version 5.6.1 > > On Fri, Mar

Re: [sage-devel] Re: xz/liblzma has been compromised

aphic protection of the Sage distribution is wildly > insufficient. > I've opened https://github.com/sagemath/sage/issues/37691 for this -- any > takers? I'd switch to sha256. And require PGP-signed commits, etc. well, I can't even comment on that issue :-) > > > On Friday, March 29,

[sage-devel] Re: xz/liblzma has been compromised

aand Conda: https://anaconda.org/anaconda/xz shows version 5.6.1 On Fri, Mar 29, 2024 at 7:18 PM Dima Pasechnik wrote: > > https://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2024/03/29/4 > > if your have xz 5.6.0 or 5.6.1 installed (e.g. Debian testing/unstable) > you have a backdoor

[sage-devel] xz/liblzma has been compromised

https://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2024/03/29/4 if your have xz 5.6.0 or 5.6.1 installed (e.g. Debian testing/unstable) you have a backdoored xz. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop

Re: [sage-devel] Something wrong kept happening , pls help

On Friday, March 29, 2024 at 3:50:23 AM UTC Cassidy Taylor wrote: Thank you for your reply! However I cant change or update my conda environment cause the code I want to replicate (which called AgentNet) have already specified restrictions on conda environment and other needed library

Re: 与“[sage-devel] Something wrong kept happening , pls help”相关的私人帖子

ing it to generate some particular graphs. You cam remove the dependence on sage with a little work (adapting Sage's code to using networkx's graphs instead) Otherwise you could try removing fixed version constraints in AgentNet's environment.yml, in hope that then Conda will be able to resolve the

[sage-devel] Re: Bug in quadratic_defect

On Sunday, March 24, 2024 at 4:02:25 PM UTC Nils Bruin wrote: On Sunday 24 March 2024 at 04:41:25 UTC-7 Przemysław Koprowski wrote: Let me just comment on your words "searching the source, this routine isn't actually used elsewhere in sage" (here:

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Bug in quadratic_defect

issues are for the cases without an already ready solution, or for something longer term than just one PR On 23 March 2024 16:55:50 GMT, Nils Bruin wrote: >Thanks! this is now > >https://github.com/sagemath/sage/issues/37656 > >or > >https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/37657 > >(I'm still a

Re: [sage-devel] pari-jupyter 1.4.3 release candidate

On 22 March 2024 23:01:47 GMT, Matthias Koeppe wrote: >On Friday, March 22, 2024 at 3:31:07 PM UTC-7 Dima Pasechnik wrote: > >They are not really "tested" - just as much of the rest of Jupiter stuff is >not tested in our CI. > >(installability - yes, > > &g

Re: [sage-devel] pari-jupyter 1.4.3 release candidate

I don't think that one would look for e.g. a Jupyter interface to Pari-GP in the catalog of sage spkgs. The natural place is Pari-GP website. They are not really "tested" - just as much of the rest of Jupiter stuff is not tested in our CI. (installability - yes, in a strange non-standard

Re: [sage-devel] pari-jupyter 1.4.3 release candidate

On 22 March 2024 19:02:30 GMT, Nils Bruin wrote: >On Friday 22 March 2024 at 11:22:12 UTC-7 Matthias Koeppe wrote: > >10 days ago, the previous maintainer, Vincent Delecroix, announced that he >steps down from maintaining it. >https://groups.google.com/g/sage-devel/c/fy1ei6bLtmc >I did some

Re: [sage-devel] pari-jupyter 1.4.3 release candidate

ch does not use anything in SageMath, nor it is used from SageMath. It can be installed from PyPI if anyone needs it. > > Matthias > > On Friday, March 22, 2024 at 5:58:47 AM UTC-7 Dima Pasechnik wrote: > >> I don't see any reason for pari-jupyter being a sage package. It has >&

Re: [sage-devel] pari-jupyter 1.4.3 release candidate

t; - Marc > > On Friday, March 22, 2024 at 7:58:47 AM UTC-5 Dima Pasechnik wrote: > >> I don't see any reason for pari-jupyter being a sage package. It has >> nothing in common with sagelib, it's a standalone jupyter kernel for >> Pari-GP. >> It has ended up in sa

Re: [sage-devel] pari-jupyter 1.4.3 release candidate

I don't see any reason for pari-jupyter being a sage package. It has nothing in common with sagelib, it's a standalone jupyter kernel for Pari-GP. It has ended up in sage in OpenDreamKit times, to make granting agency happy. On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 8:42 AM Edgar Costa wrote: > Bill Allombert

[sage-devel] Re: Vote: changes to Sage's Code of Conduct

+1 On Thursday, March 21, 2024 at 4:51:40 PM UTC John H Palmieri wrote: > Dear Sage community, > > As announced at > https://groups.google.com/g/sage-devel/c/Xf6dbPLmKPY/m/p88auKlBAwAJ, I > propose some changes to the Code of Conduct. Those changes have been > discussed and modified based on

[sage-devel] Re: Vote: Sage Code of Conduct

It's very important to note that with multiwinner approval voting, merely counting the votes per candidate and picking the top ones can lead to rather unfair results (unlike in the single winner case). For instance, if we elect k=3 candidates out of 6, say, $a,b,c,d,e,f$, and out of N=19

[sage-devel] Re: Vote: Sage Code of Conduct

On Thursday, March 7, 2024 at 6:13:42 PM UTC David Roe wrote: Dear Sage developers, Thank you for those you nominated people for the committee following my request , and thank you for those of you willing to serve. The

Re: [sage-devel] VOTE: use the smooth model instead of the plane projective model for hyperelliptic curves

Sage's treatment of weighted polynomial rings is buggy, cf. e.g. https://github.com/sagemath/sage/issues/37167 this is something that should be addressed, one way or another On Mon, Mar 11, 2024 at 9:31 PM Giacomo Pope wrote: > Dear all, > > *Summary* > > To better support arithmetic on

Re: [sage-devel] Google Season of Docs – org application deadline April 2

On 11 March 2024 05:39:36 GMT, John H Palmieri wrote: >Dima's suggestion is appealing, and somewhat along those lines, I like the >idea changing Sage to use some standard documentation style >(https://github.com/sagemath/sage/issues/31044). If the program provides a >technical writer,

Re: [sage-devel] Google Season of Docs – org application deadline April 2

Not sure whether switching Sage to standard Sphinx/Python docbuilding tools falls within the remit of the Season of Docs, but it's surely a worthwhile project - in particular if we can get funds for it. On Sun, Mar 10, 2024 at 3:03 PM David Roe wrote: > I think this would be good for Sage. I

Re: [sage-devel] Heun function support

On 10 March 2024 05:24:31 GMT, Steve Dodge wrote: >Hello, I was curious to know if there are any plans to include support for >Heun >functions in Sage, or if anyone knows of a >reliable and well-documented implementation of them elsewhere.

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Labels and Reviewing

t;On Friday 8 March 2024 at 10:22:30 UTC+1 Dima Pasechnik wrote: > >> On Thu, Mar 7, 2024 at 8:39 PM David Roe wrote: >> >>> Addressing a comment from Travis >>> <https://groups.google.com/g/sage-devel/c/IgBYUJl33SQ/m/CCKJ0dVCAAAJ> on >>> the voti

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Labels and Reviewing

onus should > be on the objector to find other developers who share their objections. > As long as the issue of GitHub blocks is not resolved, this issue is moot. A developer can block their opponents on GitHub to make sure there is not enough opposition to their PRs. David > &

Re: [sage-devel] Re: [Proposal] allow standard packages to be pip packages, reduce source tarball size

On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 1:57 AM Nathan Dunfield wrote: > On Monday, February 19, 2024 at 3:08:54 PM UTC-6 John H Palmieri wrote, > responding to Dima: > > You said: "The difference between wheel packages vs pip packages is that > the latter don't require pre-fetched wheels, and absence of the

Re: [sage-devel] Jupyter Lab Sage menu

Recent versions (10.3.*) of Sage have jupyterlab included, so it's a bit hard to tell what exactly is going on without seeing versions, etc. Conda seems to provide sage 10.2. It could be that installation of jupyterlab on top of sage breaks something in the environment. Using 10.3.rc2 might be a

Re: [sage-devel] sensational bug!

Not confirmed here, either. We need more details about the machine, the OS, the setup, etc. Is it reproducible, i.e. if you repeat this command, does it fail again? Dima On Wed, Mar 6, 2024 at 9:47 AM 'Martin R' via sage-devel < sage-devel@googlegroups.com> wrote: > On >

Re: [sage-devel] VOTE: disputed PRs

I think this doesn't work. E.g. the proposal talks about setting PRs to "needs work", but banned by the PR's author team members can't do this. That's why, as I said already, bans break the normal workflow, be it reviewing or voting. On 4 March 2024 22:08:29 GMT, kcrisman wrote: > > > >Dima,

Re: [sage-devel] VOTE: Use "CI Fix" label for merging into continuous integration runs

+1 On Mon, Mar 4, 2024 at 8:43 AM David Roe wrote: > The following proposal has been made several times the last few weeks: in > PR #37428 , in this thread > and then in this > thread

Re: [sage-devel] VOTE: disputed PRs

David, how about team members who are blocked on GitHub. For GitHub voting to work, this has to be sorted out first. Dima On Mon, Mar 4, 2024 at 8:23 AM David Roe wrote: > With no further discussion on this thread > , I'm calling a > vote

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Degree of the zero polynomial ring for `LaurentPolynomialRing`

5:29:53 PM UTC Martin R wrote: >> >>> Could you expand on 'the whole valuation interpretation of "degree" goes >>> out of the window'? What do you mean with "valuation interpretation"? >>> >>> Is raising an exception out

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Degree of the zero polynomial ring for `LaurentPolynomialRing`

On Fri, Mar 1, 2024 at 5:11 PM Nils Bruin wrote: > On Friday 1 March 2024 at 04:26:43 UTC-8 Dima Pasechnik wrote: > > > It seems that exactly the same algorithm will work (I didn't check this!) > for Laurent polynomials (they still form a Euclidean domain), and there you > b

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Degree of the zero polynomial ring for `LaurentPolynomialRing`

On Fri, Mar 1, 2024 at 11:41 AM Oscar Benjamin wrote: > On Fri, 1 Mar 2024 at 11:15, John Cremona wrote: > > > > On Fri, 1 Mar 2024 at 11:03, Dima Pasechnik wrote: > >> > >> On Fri, Mar 1, 2024 at 10:24 AM John Cremona > wrote: > >>> > >

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Degree of the zero polynomial ring for `LaurentPolynomialRing`

On Fri, Mar 1, 2024 at 10:24 AM John Cremona wrote: > > > On Fri, 1 Mar 2024 at 10:04, Dima Pasechnik wrote: > >> >> >> On 1 March 2024 09:07:26 GMT, 'Martin R' via sage-devel < >> sage-devel@googlegroups.com> wrote: >> >I'd be OK w

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Degree of the zero polynomial ring for `LaurentPolynomialRing`

r. Dima > >Martin >On Thursday 29 February 2024 at 22:54:20 UTC+1 Nils Bruin wrote: > >> On Thursday 29 February 2024 at 11:15:21 UTC-8 Dima Pasechnik wrote: >> >> How about using something like https://github.com/NeilGirdhar/extended_int >> ? >> (Even better,

Re: [sage-devel] Re: Degree of the zero polynomial ring for `LaurentPolynomialRing`

is > is not code I am familiar with using and so I don't know what people could > be relying on. > > On Wednesday, February 28, 2024 at 6:41:48 PM UTC Dima Pasechnik wrote: > >> > >> On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 5:00 PM Nils Bruin wrote: > >>> > >>>

Re: [sage-devel] Re: VOTE: use "blocker" label only for PRs; use "critical" label for Issues

On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 4:46 PM William Stein wrote: > > > On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 8:39 AM Eric Gourgoulhon > wrote: > >> -1 from my side, for I think an issue can be a blocker. >> For instance: >> https://github.com/sagemath/sage/issues/36914 >> This issue, which regards the use of the

Re: [sage-devel] SuiteSparse and sage and sparse_matrix.LU()

>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thank you for reminding >>>>>>> I went through. >>>>>>> We need to Decompose A11 only and rest can be calculated via taking >>>>>>> inverse of L11 or U11. >>>>>>

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >