I agree, that doesn't sound good. At the moment, I just want to check
out the sandpile functionality, so I don't think I will wade in and
try to improve glpk, or bug the author to do so.
On the positive side, I think I now have packages that install
correctly, at least on my own mac. They are
Marshall Hampton wrote:
I agree, that doesn't sound good. At the moment, I just want to check
out the sandpile functionality, so I don't think I will wade in and
try to improve glpk, or bug the author to do so.
On the positive side, I think I now have packages that install
correctly, at
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 2:04 PM, Dr. David Kirkby
david.kir...@onetel.netwrote:
Marshall Hampton wrote:
I agree, that doesn't sound good. At the moment, I just want to check
out the sandpile functionality, so I don't think I will wade in and
try to improve glpk, or bug the author to do
I'm not disagreeing, I just don't know how to quickly change that. If
someone can give me some tips I will at least patch the spkgs.
-Marshall
On Jul 31, 4:21 pm, William Stein wst...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 2:04 PM, Dr. David Kirkby
david.kir...@onetel.netwrote:
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 01:18:58PM -0700, Marshall Hampton wrote:
I agree, that doesn't sound good. At the moment, I just want to check
out the sandpile functionality, so I don't think I will wade in and
try to improve glpk, or bug the author to do so.
On the positive side, I think I now
Marshall Hampton wrote:
I'm not disagreeing, I just don't know how to quickly change that. If
someone can give me some tips I will at least patch the spkgs.
-Marshall
There may be no quick fix, though the code did not look very large, so I
doubt it would be a huge job to do it properly.
Thanks for pointing that out. I am somewhat disturbed by the positive
review for that becoming a standard package, which seems inconsistent
with previous policy. In #6663 I am merely suggesting 4ti2 and glpk
as experimental packages, with the idea of transitioning them to
optional, and then
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 7:10 PM, Marshall Hamptonhampto...@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks for pointing that out. I am somewhat disturbed by the positive
review for that becoming a standard package, which seems inconsistent
I don't know where you got that. I was the reviewer and I clearly said
I got from Minh's comment:
Once #6502 gets positive review, this SPKG could then be merged in
the Sage standard packages repository.
-Marshall
On Jul 31, 6:20 pm, David Joyner wdjoy...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 7:10 PM, Marshall Hamptonhampto...@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks for
Hi Marshall,
On Sat, Aug 1, 2009 at 9:32 AM, Marshall Hamptonhampto...@gmail.com wrote:
I got from Minh's comment:
Once #6502 gets positive review, this SPKG could then be merged in
the Sage standard packages repository.
That was a typo on my part. It should be optional instead of
10 matches
Mail list logo
