On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 9:13 AM, Brian Granger wrote:
>
>> Well, I think what we should do is merge as much of SPD into Sage as
>> possible to lessen the maintainance burden. One thing I could see here
>> is to define SAGE_EXECUTABLE and you would just set it to spd in your
>> code.
>
> I think t
> Well, I think what we should do is merge as much of SPD into Sage as
> possible to lessen the maintainance burden. One thing I could see here
> is to define SAGE_EXECUTABLE and you would just set it to spd in your
> code.
I think this is a good idea. I think if SPD is kept separate, it will
en
>> The build bits do not exist in ipython, but I think ipython should
>> have some good web notebook.
>
> Sure, competition is good for business. I just don't think this code
> is currently a priority for them and judging from the current
> discussion about getting 0.10 out the door I don't see an
On 04/21/09 13:31, mabshoff wrote:
> Ok. I tried to find what I was thinking off and could not find it, so
> it seems that my recollection was wrong, so mea culpa. Thanks for
> pinging Enthought on this to set the record straight.
Not a problem. Thanks for all the excellent work on Sage!
cheers
On Apr 21, 12:55 am, Prabhu Ramachandran
wrote:
> On 04/17/09 15:05, mabshoff wrote:
Hi Prabhu,
> > I think there was something on the scipy or numpy list about this
> > early this or late last week. It was about setuptools IIRC and might
> > have been part about the discussion about numpy eg
On 04/17/09 15:05, mabshoff wrote:
> On Apr 17, 2:25 am, Prabhu Ramachandran
> wrote:
>> On 04/17/09 13:37, mabshoff wrote:
>>
>>> If your plan is still to recreate all scripts to be BSD the above
>>> would be more or less pointless, so you need to let us know what you
>>> want to do. I really do
On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 3:35 AM, mabshoff wrote:
[...]
> I am not sure what you refer to, but we either aren't taking about the
> same thing or there is some misunderstanding.
http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel/browse_thread/thread/a8d89440bdff814b/
>
> What I would like to see is the po
On Apr 17, 3:13 am, Ondrej Certik wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 2:33 AM, mabshoff wrote:
> > Well, it would happen from my end. I think that in the process we
> > would do some serious cleanup, but the switch over should be quick
> > *if* we do it IMHO.
>
> Yes -- but wait until I have a
On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 2:33 AM, mabshoff wrote:
>
>
>
> On Apr 17, 2:04 am, Ondrej Certik wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 1:07 AM, mabshoff wrote:
>
>
>
>> > Well, I think what we should do is merge as much of SPD into Sage as
>> > possible to lessen the maintainance burden. One thing I cou
On Apr 17, 2:25 am, Prabhu Ramachandran
wrote:
> On 04/17/09 13:37, mabshoff wrote:
>
> > If your plan is still to recreate all scripts to be BSD the above
> > would be more or less pointless, so you need to let us know what you
> > want to do. I really don't want to relicense my code in $SAGE_
On Apr 17, 2:04 am, Ondrej Certik wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 1:07 AM, mabshoff wrote:
> > Well, I think what we should do is merge as much of SPD into Sage as
> > possible to lessen the maintainance burden. One thing I could see here
> > is to define SAGE_EXECUTABLE and you would just
On 04/17/09 13:37, mabshoff wrote:
> If your plan is still to recreate all scripts to be BSD the above
> would be more or less pointless, so you need to let us know what you
> want to do. I really don't want to relicense my code in $SAGE_LOCAL/
> bin/sage-$FOO to BSD since the EPD for example has
> part of this is the notebook, which is also GPL. And also I most
> probably will want to include (in my custom modifications of SPD for
> finite elements) some GPL library anyway, like libmesh.sf.net.
Actually, libmesh is LGPL. But maybe I'd use some other program that
is GPL (most electronic s
On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 1:07 AM, mabshoff wrote:
>
>
>
> On Apr 17, 12:58 am, Ondrej Certik wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 12:21 AM, mabshoff wrote:
>
>
>
>> > If SAGE_ROOT is already set sage aborts:
>>
>> Ah, so I think I smell where the problem is --- I broke the SAGE_ROOT
>> stuff. Whe
On Apr 17, 12:58 am, Ondrej Certik wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 12:21 AM, mabshoff wrote:
> > If SAGE_ROOT is already set sage aborts:
>
> Ah, so I think I smell where the problem is --- I broke the SAGE_ROOT
> stuff. When I fix it, which I have to fix anyway, thing should start
> work
On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 12:21 AM, mabshoff wrote:
>
>
>
> On Apr 17, 12:09 am, Ondrej Certik wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> why is the notebook trying to execute "sage" that it finds in the
>> path, rather than another copy of the sage that it is running?
>
> Because sage-env assures that the right sage sc
On Apr 17, 12:09 am, Ondrej Certik wrote:
> Hi,
>
> why is the notebook trying to execute "sage" that it finds in the
> path, rather than another copy of the sage that it is running?
Because sage-env assures that the right sage script is called, see
below.
> The following patches fix that (fo
17 matches
Mail list logo
