On Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 10:23 PM Volker Braun wrote:
> On Monday, September 27, 2021 at 1:29:23 AM UTC+2 dim...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> Homebrew need not be installed into /usr/local, and doesn't need root if
>> one chooses not to install there.
>>
>
> You can theoretically untar homebrew in a
On Monday, September 27, 2021 at 1:29:23 AM UTC+2 dim...@gmail.com wrote:
> Homebrew need not be installed into /usr/local, and doesn't need root if
> one chooses not to install there.
>
You can theoretically untar homebrew in a different directory, but at least
when I tried that a couple of
2021-09-27 à 08:32 UTC, Samuel Lelievre:
>
> Nathan,
>
> I believe William is talking about "sage-forge" or "sagemath-forge"
> as discussed recently on sage-devel in these threads:
>
> https://groups.google.com/g/sage-devel/c/JYwHrmcqNhc
> https://groups.google.com/g/sage-devel/c/QeYle_D8Otc
>
2021-09-27 02:03:51 UTC, Nathan Dunfield:
> On Friday, September 24, 2021 at 1:12:38 PM UTC-5 William Stein wrote:
>
>> I assume you are talking about the official binaries that are distributed
>>
> on Sagemath.org. Fortunately, the Sage binaries on MacOS that are
>>
> produced by the
On Friday, September 24, 2021 at 1:12:38 PM UTC-5 William Stein wrote:
> I assume you are talking about the official binaries that are distributed
> on Sagemath.org. Fortunately, the Sage binaries on
> MacOS that are produced by the conda-forge devs are not total crap.
>
William,
There are
On Mon, 27 Sep 2021, 00:01 Volker Braun, wrote:
> On Sunday, September 26, 2021 at 11:34:33 PM UTC+2 dim...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> I don't really see how homebrew is different from a rolling Linux distro.
>>
>
> Homebrew doesn't come from the OS vendor. No automatic security updates.
> There is
On Sunday, September 26, 2021 at 11:34:33 PM UTC+2 dim...@gmail.com wrote:
> I don't really see how homebrew is different from a rolling Linux distro.
>
Homebrew doesn't come from the OS vendor. No automatic security updates.
There is no package management where the admin can look up if any
On Sun, Sep 26, 2021 at 12:53 PM Volker Braun wrote:
> On OSX I don't feel comfortable recommending anyone to run a script as
> root so homebrew can barf random files into the filesystem. For security
> and maintainability we really need to be able to install Sage without
> having unsigned and
On OSX I don't feel comfortable recommending anyone to run a script as root
so homebrew can barf random files into the filesystem. For security and
maintainability we really need to be able to install Sage without having
unsigned and effectively unversioned dependencies.
My suggestion would be
On Friday, September 24, 2021 at 1:07:48 PM UTC-7 kcrisman wrote:
> I guess we already have disentangled R, or else someone would have
>> mentioned that as requiring Fortran?
>>
>
No, we haven't even removed the R dependency yet. When I proposed
downgrading R from its status as standard
>
>
> The way to spoil users of Sage on MacOS (or anywhere) is to create a
> binary installer that work really well,
>
Correct. This is what all this discussion should be aiming toward -
including a binary installer that *allows for compiling/installing of
optional packages and Cython*. (Or
On Friday, September 24, 2021 at 12:28:02 PM UTC-7 Matthias Koeppe wrote:
> On Friday, September 24, 2021 at 11:12:38 AM UTC-7 wst...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> I also personally wish there were a significantly smaller Sage core with
>> much less
>> dependencies, and which removes everything from
On Fri, 24 Sep 2021, 19:12 William Stein, wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 10:38 AM Dima Pasechnik wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 6:26 PM William Stein wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 9:03 AM Dima Pasechnik wrote
>>>
>>
>
>> yes, Sage binaries on macOS in
On Friday, September 24, 2021 at 11:12:38 AM UTC-7 wst...@gmail.com wrote:
> I also personally wish there were a significantly smaller Sage core with
> much less
> dependencies, and which removes everything from the Sage that annoys Dima,
> and much more.This is a difficult
> technical
On Fri, 24 Sep 2021, 18:26 William Stein, wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 9:03 AM Dima Pasechnik wrote
> > We spoiled the users, they assumed that Sage is a distribution. Yes,
> there will be a short while they'll ask - and the answer will be:
> > RTFM [...]
>
> I don't want to do that to
On Friday, 24 September 2021 at 11:12:38 UTC-7 wst...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> In conflict with all of the above, I also personally wish there were a
> significantly smaller Sage core with much less
> dependencies, and which removes everything from the Sage that annoys Dima,
> and much more.
On Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 10:38 AM Dima Pasechnik wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 6:26 PM William Stein wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 9:03 AM Dima Pasechnik wrote
>>
>
> yes, Sage binaries on macOS in particular are total crap - in part thanks
> to "let's vendor everything
On Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 6:26 PM William Stein wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 9:03 AM Dima Pasechnik wrote
> > We spoiled the users, they assumed that Sage is a distribution. Yes,
> there will be a short while they'll ask - and the answer will be:
> > RTFM [...]
>
> I don't want to do that
On Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 9:03 AM Dima Pasechnik wrote
> We spoiled the users, they assumed that Sage is a distribution. Yes,
there will be a short while they'll ask - and the answer will be:
> RTFM [...]
I don't want to do that to our users. Sage was started to compete with
[Magma | Mathematica
On Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 5:48 PM Matthias Koeppe
wrote:
> On Friday, September 24, 2021 at 9:36:57 AM UTC-7 Dima Pasechnik wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 24 Sep 2021, 17:30 Matthias Koeppe, wrote:
>>
>>> You might recall that in 2020 I wrote the system-package recommendation
>>> scripts
>>>
>>
>>
> Your
On Friday, September 24, 2021 at 9:36:57 AM UTC-7 Dima Pasechnik wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Sep 2021, 17:30 Matthias Koeppe, wrote:
>
>> You might recall that in 2020 I wrote the system-package recommendation
>> scripts
>>
>
>
Your recommendations get routinely ignored, as they are recommendations,
On Fri, 24 Sep 2021, 17:30 Matthias Koeppe,
wrote:
> On Friday, September 24, 2021 at 9:03:20 AM UTC-7 Dima Pasechnik wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 4:43 PM Matthias Koeppe
>> wrote:
>>
>>> you are shifting the work from our working spkg-install.in script to
>>> handholding users who
On Friday, September 24, 2021 at 9:03:20 AM UTC-7 Dima Pasechnik wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 4:43 PM Matthias Koeppe
> wrote:
>
>> you are shifting the work from our working spkg-install.in script to
>> handholding users who attempt [install of gcc from source] on the mailing
>> lists.
On Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 4:50 PM Matthias Koeppe
wrote:
> On Thursday, September 23, 2021 at 9:09:45 PM UTC-7 Michael Orlitzky wrote:
>
>> [Matthias'] Item #2 happened, incidentally, only because we've copy &
>> pasted so
>> many packages into sage pretending to be a linux distribution.
>>
On Thursday, September 23, 2021 at 9:13:23 PM UTC-7 Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> > > Whoever is building the binary images could install a compiler into
> > > SAGE_LOCAL with [some system package command] or whatever before they
> start. There's no
> > > need for it to come from an SPKG.
>
Well,
On Friday, September 24, 2021 at 9:03:20 AM UTC-7 Dima Pasechnik wrote:
> NumPy/SciPy mailing lists/support forums aren't full of questions on how
> to install a Fortran compiler, you know.
>
Yes because of wheels.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
On Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 4:43 PM Matthias Koeppe
wrote:
> On Friday, September 24, 2021 at 8:27:07 AM UTC-7 Dima Pasechnik wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 4:14 PM Matthias Koeppe
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Bizarre that you think that it's easy for users to build gcc from source
>>> but it's somehow
On Thursday, September 23, 2021 at 9:09:45 PM UTC-7 Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> [Matthias'] Item #2 happened, incidentally, only because we've copy &
> pasted so
> many packages into sage pretending to be a linux distribution.
> Eliminating that problem altogether begins right here, at the root
On Friday, September 24, 2021 at 8:27:07 AM UTC-7 Dima Pasechnik wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 4:14 PM Matthias Koeppe
> wrote:
>
>> Bizarre that you think that it's easy for users to build gcc from source
>> but it's somehow hard for us to maintain the package that builds gcc from
>>
On Friday, September 24, 2021 at 8:30:40 AM UTC-7 Dima Pasechnik wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 3:54 PM Matthias Koeppe
> wrote:
>
>> On Friday, September 24, 2021 at 4:23:32 AM UTC-7 Dima Pasechnik wrote:
>>
>>> Why does it build everything from source? E.g. numpy doesn't build
>>> Fortran
On Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 3:54 PM Matthias Koeppe
wrote:
> On Friday, September 24, 2021 at 4:23:32 AM UTC-7 Dima Pasechnik wrote:
>
>>
>> On Fri, 24 Sep 2021, 02:12 Matthias Koeppe, wrote:
>>
>>> I repeat my strong objections to the proposed change -- which does not
>>> solve any problems and
On Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 4:14 PM Matthias Koeppe
wrote:
> On Friday, September 24, 2021 at 4:23:32 AM UTC-7 Dima Pasechnik wrote:
>
>>
>> On Fri, 24 Sep 2021, 02:12 Matthias Koeppe, wrote:
>>
>>> I repeat my strong objections to the proposed change -- which does not
>>> solve any problems and
On Friday, September 24, 2021 at 4:23:32 AM UTC-7 Dima Pasechnik wrote:
>
> On Fri, 24 Sep 2021, 02:12 Matthias Koeppe, wrote:
>
>> I repeat my strong objections to the proposed change -- which does not
>> solve any problems and only creates new ones.
>>
>> 2. We used the gcc spkg as recently
On Friday, September 24, 2021 at 6:28:50 AM UTC-7 Julien Puydt wrote:
> I made the point years ago that sagemath should be broken in two:
>
> - sagemath-the-software ;
>
> - sagemath-the-distribution.
>
> This thread is an illustration of why that would simplify matters
>
Yes, and many of us
On Friday, September 24, 2021 at 4:23:32 AM UTC-7 Dima Pasechnik wrote:
>
> On Fri, 24 Sep 2021, 02:12 Matthias Koeppe, wrote:
>
>> I repeat my strong objections to the proposed change -- which does not
>> solve any problems and only creates new ones.
>> 7. (As I explained before in
>>
Hi,
Le vendredi 24 septembre 2021 à 12:23 +0100, Dima Pasechnik a écrit :
>
> On Fri, 24 Sep 2021, 02:12 Matthias Koeppe,
> wrote:
> > I repeat my strong objections to the proposed change -- which does
> > not solve any problems and only creates new ones.
> >
> > 1. When you refer to the "huge
On Thu, 2021-09-23 at 21:57 -0700, Matthias Koeppe wrote:
> On Thursday, September 23, 2021 at 9:09:45 PM UTC-7 Michael Orlitzky wrote:
>
> > Item #2 happened, incidentally, only because we've copy & pasted so
> > many packages into sage pretending to be a linux distribution.
> > Eliminating
On Fri, 24 Sep 2021, 02:12 Matthias Koeppe,
wrote:
> I repeat my strong objections to the proposed change -- which does not
> solve any problems and only creates new ones.
>
> 1. When you refer to the "huge time sink", I think you are referring to
> painful memories from some distant past. But
On Thursday, September 23, 2021 at 9:09:45 PM UTC-7 Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> Item #2 happened, incidentally, only because we've copy & pasted so
> many packages into sage pretending to be a linux distribution.
> Eliminating that problem altogether begins right here, at the root of
> the
On Thu, 2021-09-23 at 21:18 -0700, Matthias Koeppe wrote:
> On Thursday, September 23, 2021 at 7:48:35 PM UTC-7 Michael Orlitzky wrote:
>
> > You could tar up an entire Gentoo system with
> > sage installed and it would probably take up less space than our
> > existing binaries.
> >
>
>
On Thursday, September 23, 2021 at 9:28:36 PM UTC-7 Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> On Thu, 2021-09-23 at 21:10 -0700, Matthias Koeppe wrote:
> > Item 7 of my list, pip-installability, is definitely not addressed by
> any
> > of these. From a Python dev viewpoint, a project that is not
> >
On Thu, 2021-09-23 at 21:10 -0700, Matthias Koeppe wrote:
> On Thursday, September 23, 2021 at 7:48:35 PM UTC-7 Michael Orlitzky wrote:
>
> > 2, 4, 6, and 7 are addressed by Conda, Nix, Guix, Homebrew, or even
> > Gentoo Prefix.
> >
>
> Item 7 of my list, pip-installability, is definitely not
On Thursday, September 23, 2021 at 7:48:35 PM UTC-7 Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> You could tar up an entire Gentoo system with
> sage installed and it would probably take up less space than our
> existing binaries.
>
Gentoo is not relocatable, so that would not be useful. gentoo-prefix is
On Thu, 2021-09-23 at 20:51 -0700, Matthias Koeppe wrote:
> On Thursday, September 23, 2021 at 7:48:35 PM UTC-7 Michael Orlitzky wrote:
>
> > Whoever is building the binary images could install a compiler into
> > SAGE_LOCAL with "dpkg-deb -x" or whatever before they start. There's no
> > need
On Thursday, September 23, 2021 at 7:48:35 PM UTC-7 Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> We ship a
> 3GB image of an entire operating system. This could be done much easier
> by... shipping an image of an entire operating system: QEMU,
> VirtualBox, Docker, etc.
>
We don't even seem to have enough
On Thursday, September 23, 2021 at 7:48:35 PM UTC-7 Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> 2, 4, 6, and 7 are addressed by Conda, Nix, Guix, Homebrew, or even
> Gentoo Prefix.
>
Item 7 of my list, pip-installability, is definitely not addressed by any
of these. From a Python dev viewpoint, a project that
On Thu, 2021-09-23 at 20:32 -0700, John H Palmieri wrote:
> Item #2 actually happened. Can you cite posts from people successfully
> using the tools you mention to get around it?
People who solve the unnecessary problem in the obvious and reliable
way don't post about it. If you really doubt
On Thursday, September 23, 2021 at 7:48:35 PM UTC-7 Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> Whoever is building the binary images could install a compiler into
> SAGE_LOCAL with "dpkg-deb -x" or whatever before they start. There's no
> need for it to come from an SPKG.
I don't think Debian packages are
Item #2 actually happened. Can you cite posts from people successfully
using the tools you mention to get around it?
On Thursday, September 23, 2021 at 7:48:35 PM UTC-7 Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> On Thu, 2021-09-23 at 18:12 -0700, Matthias Koeppe wrote:
> > I repeat my strong objections to the
On Thu, Sep 23, 2021 at 7:48 PM Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> On Thu, 2021-09-23 at 18:12 -0700, Matthias Koeppe wrote:
> And, veering off-topic:
>
> Our binaries aren't really binaries in the traditional sense. We ship a
> 3GB image of an entire operating system. This could be done much easier
>
On Thu, 2021-09-23 at 18:12 -0700, Matthias Koeppe wrote:
> I repeat my strong objections to the proposed change -- which does not
> solve any problems and only creates new ones.
>
2, 4, 6, and 7 are addressed by Conda, Nix, Guix, Homebrew, or even
Gentoo Prefix. These projects *want* to build
I repeat my strong objections to the proposed change -- which does not
solve any problems and only creates new ones.
1. When you refer to the "huge time sink", I think you are referring to
painful memories from some distant past. But we have no current or recent
problem with either the gcc or
52 matches
Mail list logo
