kcrisman schrieb am Mittwoch, 27. April 2022 um 15:02:28 UTC+2:
On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 10:31:17 PM UTC-4 Matthias Koeppe wrote:
>
>> An update: The latest version of the installation manual (from
>> https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/33655) is available here:
>>
On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 10:31:17 PM UTC-4 Matthias Koeppe wrote:
> An update: The latest version of the installation manual (from
> https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/33655) is available here:
>
An update: The latest version of the installation manual
(from https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/33655) is available
here:
https://7896a56df78170d5bab0f306d1a7230986a4206a--sagemath-tobias.netlify.app/installation/index.html
Thanks to everyone for their input.
On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at
On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 5:22:28 AM UTC-7 seb@gmail.com wrote:
> I think someone visiting our web-page the first time will rather push the
> *big
> blue button Download 9.5* instead of going to the download menu
> especially if he wants to be sure to get the current release. This
On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 3:53:46 PM UTC-7 Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> By the same reasoning, Gentoo isn't source-based,
> because you have the option of installing pre-built binary packages
> with the default set of options.
>
Oh, I didn't know. Haven't met a Gentoo user, only Gentoo
On Tue, 2022-04-26 at 15:12 -0700, Matthias Koeppe wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 2:07:40 PM UTC-7 Michael Orlitzky wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 2022-04-26 at 12:20 -0700, Matthias Koeppe wrote:
> > > This makes no sense on any distribution other than build-from-source
> > > distributions like
On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 2:07:40 PM UTC-7 Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> On Tue, 2022-04-26 at 12:20 -0700, Matthias Koeppe wrote:
> > This makes no sense on any distribution other than build-from-source
> > distributions like gentoo.
>
> Homebrew, Conda, and sage itself are all source-based.
On Tue, 2022-04-26 at 12:20 -0700, Matthias Koeppe wrote:
>
> This makes no sense on any distribution other than build-from-source
> distributions like gentoo.
>
Homebrew, Conda, and sage itself are all source-based.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
On Friday, April 22, 2022 at 10:53:50 AM UTC-7 Matthias Koeppe wrote:
> steer users to using conda-forge.
>
An update: Now https://www.sagemath.org/ also has a menu item "Download |
Linux/macOS
binaries (conda-forge)
On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 11:34:50 AM UTC-7 Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> This generally makes packaging harder if the optional thing affects the
> existing sage installation. Distribution packages should know all of
> their dependencies at install-time.
>
This makes no sense on any
On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 5:15:51 AM UTC-7 kcrisman wrote:
> 4. A link to some Windows doc on what WSL is would probably be pretty
> helpful, since presumably a lot of Windows users who like doing math have
> never heard of it.
>
Thanks, I've added a bit (adapting from something that was
On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 5:15:51 AM UTC-7 kcrisman wrote:
> Below a few minor notes about the sagemath-tobias link [...]
>
> 1. Is it possible to have a short bullet list for the three/four options
> * Linux
> * Mac
> * Windoze
> * Cloud
> that link to those, immediately below "Where would
On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 11:46:57 AM UTC-7 Thierry
(sage-googlesucks@xxx) wrote:
> If setting up a new build infrastructure solves an actual issue
It doesn't.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this
On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 5:22:28 AM UTC-7 seb@gmail.com wrote:
> I agree, we should update our documentation to warn people about wildly
> outdated distribution packages on outdated OS distributions, and steer
> users to using conda-forge.
>
> I would have expected that the *no root
On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 11:32:03AM -0700, Matthias Koeppe wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 11:25:39 AM UTC-7 Thierry
> (sage-googlesucks@xxx) wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 11:19:52AM -0700, Matthias Koeppe wrote:
> > > Marc Culler's macOS binary packaging gets it right -- he just
Note that we already generate this "apt-get install" line for the
documentation (see
https://doc.sagemath.org/html/en/installation/source.html#linux-recommended-installation).
Unfortunately the writing in this section of the manual is not very good
and would need help to be improved.
This
On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 10:14:57 AM UTC-7 Eric Gourgoulhon wrote:
> Le mardi 26 avril 2022 à 14:22:28 UTC+2, seb@gmail.com a écrit :
>
>> several Linux distributions carry reasonably up to date binary Sage
>> installations (and these can be installed on various VMs, e.g. on Windows’
On Tue, 2022-04-26 at 10:26 -0700, Nils Bruin wrote:
>
> If packaging is going to play a more important role in the distribution of
> sage, I think we need to make a distinction between build-time optional
> packages and packages that can be installed after sage has been built. And
> ideally
On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 11:25:39 AM UTC-7 Thierry
(sage-googlesucks@xxx) wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 11:19:52AM -0700, Matthias Koeppe wrote:
> > Marc Culler's macOS binary packaging gets it right -- he just builds all
> > optional packages that happen to build without errors and
On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 5:15:51 AM UTC-7 kcrisman wrote:
> 4. A link to some Windows doc on what WSL is would probably be pretty
> helpful, since presumably a lot of Windows users who like doing math have
> never heard of it.
>
We have a bunch of tickets that propose to improve the WSL
On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 11:19:52AM -0700, Matthias Koeppe wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 10:26:59 AM UTC-7 Nils Bruin wrote:
>
> > If we're going to allow for/promote packaging as an easy way to get access
> > to sage, I think we need to reevaluate how we provide optional packages as
>
On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 10:26:59 AM UTC-7 Nils Bruin wrote:
> If we're going to allow for/promote packaging as an easy way to get access
> to sage, I think we need to reevaluate how we provide optional packages as
> well. Currently, our optional packages are basically *build time*
Hi,
a few years ago, i used to build 16 binaries in a row at each release
for various Debian and Ubuntu versions and architectures. Then, i
stopped because Jan Groenwald dedicated some machines at AIMS to build
binaries. If necessary, i could try to setup such a builder for a bunch
of binaries
If we're going to allow for/promote packaging as an easy way to get access
to sage, I think we need to reevaluate how we provide optional packages as
well. Currently, our optional packages are basically *build time* optional
(their inclusion or exclusion can lead to changes how other modules
Hi,
First of all many thanks to all of you who are improving the installation
instructions!
Le mardi 26 avril 2022 à 14:22:28 UTC+2, seb@gmail.com a écrit :
> several Linux distributions carry reasonably up to date binary Sage
> installations (and these can be installed on various VMs,
several Linux distributions carry reasonably up to date binary Sage
installations (and these can be installed on various VMs, e.g. on Windows’
WSL, ChromeOS’ Crostini, etc)
For example current LinuxMint and WSL are both on Ubuntu 20.04 LTS which
gives you Sage 9.0 (as in the example I’ve
If we're moving away from providing binaries, then this is a good way to
go, well organized. Below a few minor notes about the sagemath-tobias
link, I hope they are helpful. My apologies in advance for any bike
shedding, though I tried to be pretty concrete.
1. Is it possible to have a short
On Friday, April 22, 2022 at 10:53:50 AM UTC-7 Matthias Koeppe wrote:
> On Friday, April 22, 2022 at 8:16:08 AM UTC-7 seb@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> For Ubuntu users the hint to use the systems standard package managers
>> leads to an old version (9.0)
>>
> I agree, we should update our
On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 12:17:27 PM UTC-7 David Roe wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 2:54 PM Matthias Koeppe
> wrote:
>
>> All - https://www.sagemath.org/ now has a revised Download menu - please
>> take a look.
>> (thanks to Harald for merging my PR
>>
On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 2:54 PM Matthias Koeppe
wrote:
> All - https://www.sagemath.org/ now has a revised Download menu - please
> take a look.
> (thanks to Harald for merging my PR
> https://github.com/sagemath/website/pull/238
>
Very nice! Is there a way to set up our DNS so that the url is
All - https://www.sagemath.org/ now has a revised Download menu - please
take a look.
(thanks to Harald for merging my
PR https://github.com/sagemath/website/pull/238
On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 11:42:53 AM UTC-7 Matthias Koeppe wrote:
> Thanks, Marc, I've updated it in
Thanks, Marc, I've updated it in https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/33655
On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 11:35:12 AM UTC-7 marc@gmail.com wrote:
> Hi Matthias,
>
> I have one correction to the 9.6 installation manual. There are no longer
> two choices for the macOS binary installation. There
On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 4:27:21 AM UTC-7 Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> The best way to accomplish the goal of "easy to install" is to make
> sage easy to package.
I agree with this one sentence of your long message.
For those who want to help with this, here are a few tickets that could use
Hi Matthias,
I have one correction to the 9.6 installation manual. There are no longer
two choices for the macOS binary installation. There is exactly one
choice: a 1GB download which includes every optional package that we were
able to build, except for those which can be installed with the
On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 12:39:42 AM UTC-7 seb@gmail.com wrote:
> Actually we no longer advertise the binary distribution.
>
> So, what do we advertise to potential newcomers to Sage? I think despite
> such great things as Cocalc, SageMathCell and Gitpod, there should be
> something
On a seemingly unrelated note which is actually quite related, I don’t
think it would be possible to find this out, but it would be interesting to
know at what rate there has been user -> developer conversion over the
years.
Depends on the definition of conversion. In olden times, you might
> Everyone agrees on that part, but how to go about it is a religious
> matter.
Truth.
> I've been using sage, teaching with sage, writing papers that
> cite sage, and giving presentations about my research that use sage for
> about fifteen years. I have literally never met someone
On Mon, 2022-04-25 at 00:39 -0700, seb@gmail.com wrote:
>
> So, what do we advertise to potential newcomers to Sage? I think despite
> such great things as Cocalc, SageMathCell and Gitpod, there should be
> something easy to install that can be used offline, too.
>
Everyone agrees on that
I must confess I have never dealt with Magma…
So let us talk about the ease of installation of the other 3.
Guillermo
On Mon, 25 Apr 2022 at 12:24, John Cremona wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Apr 2022 at 11:18, G. M.-S. wrote:
> >
> > On macOS: A wonderful app, thanks to Marc Culler.
> >
> > On
On Mon, 25 Apr 2022 at 11:18, G. M.-S. wrote:
>
>
> On macOS: A wonderful app, thanks to Marc Culler.
>
> On Windows: Too complex for my far from savvy students. We are stuck with
> SageMath 9.3 for the time being.
>
> On Linux: It depends on the distribution, some have totally outdated
>
On macOS: A wonderful app, thanks to Marc Culler.
On Windows: Too complex for my far from savvy students. We are stuck with
SageMath 9.3 for the time being.
On Linux: It depends on the distribution, some have totally outdated
versions (as seen now and then in messages to sage-support).
Most
On Mon, 25 Apr 2022, 08:39 seb@gmail.com, wrote:
> Actually we no longer advertise the binary distribution.
>
> So, what do we advertise to potential newcomers to Sage? I think despite
> such great things as Cocalc, SageMathCell and Gitpod, there should be
> something easy to install that
Actually we no longer advertise the binary distribution.
So, what do we advertise to potential newcomers to Sage? I think despite
such great things as Cocalc, SageMathCell and Gitpod, there should be
something easy to install that can be used offline, too.
This could be done in
Neither approach assumes anything, but using “make” is at least familiar to
anyone who has built any unix software in the past 30 years
This is a null measure set of Windows users (and probably of Mac users).
Especially of undergrad students, which are (or should be) a very sizable
portion
On Friday, April 22, 2022 at 2:10:45 PM UTC-4 David Roe wrote:
> I haven't been following the copy and paste thread, but I'm in favor of
> keeping sage -i xyz functional, even at the cost of some hacks in our
> codebase. There are a lot of existing Sage users who are familiar with
> that
On Sat, Apr 23, 2022 at 2:08 AM Ray Rogers wrote:
>
> Do you still (?) want reports of successes/failures/hick-ups. I always seem
> to find the last :)
Sure, we do. Needless to say, it's better be triaged against known bugs.
>
> rrogers
>
> On 4/22/22 11:16, seb@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
Do you still (?) want reports of successes/failures/hick-ups. I always
seem to find the last :)
rrogers
On 4/22/22 11:16, seb@gmail.com wrote:
(./sage -i should be deprecated and removed…)
— or just have ‘sage -i xyz’ do whatever ‘make xyz’ now does, perhaps.
+1
Replacing
I haven't been following the copy and paste thread, but I'm in favor of
keeping sage -i xyz functional, even at the cost of some hacks in our
codebase. There are a lot of existing Sage users who are familiar with
that command as a mechanism to install optional packages, even if it's not
a priori
On Fri, 2022-04-22 at 08:16 -0700, seb@gmail.com wrote:
>
> (./sage -i should be deprecated and removed…)
>
> — or just have ‘sage -i xyz’ do whatever ‘make xyz’ now does, perhaps.
>
> +1
>
This only works if you don't ever want to e.g. rename sage to sage.in
to fix the copy & paste from
On Friday, April 22, 2022 at 8:16:08 AM UTC-7 seb@gmail.com wrote:
> (./sage -i should be deprecated and removed…)
>
> — or just have ‘sage -i xyz’ do whatever ‘make xyz’ now does, perhaps.
>
> It has been repeated many times that "sage -i" either "is" deprecated or
"should be" deprecated.
I
(./sage -i should be deprecated and removed…)
— or just have ‘sage -i xyz’ do whatever ‘make xyz’ now does, perhaps.
+1
Replacing sage -i xyz by make xyz sounds like assuming *all Sage users are
developers*. make xyz doesn’t work if the current directory isn’t SAGE_ROOT
or if make doesn’t
On 2022-01-31 20:13:12, John Cremona wrote:
> >
> > (./sage -i should be deprecated and removed...)
>
> -- or just have 'sage -i xyz' do whatever 'make xyz' now does, perhaps.
>
The main philosophical issue with this is that "make" is a build-time
tool, and that "sage" is the thing that "make"
On Mon, 31 Jan 2022, 20:13 John Cremona, wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 at 20:07, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, 31 Jan 2022, 20:01 John Cremona, wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Mon, 31 Jan 2022, 17:12 Sébastien Labbé, wrote:
> >>>
> >>> The "./configure" part of the installation
On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 at 20:07, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, 31 Jan 2022, 20:01 John Cremona, wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, 31 Jan 2022, 17:12 Sébastien Labbé, wrote:
>>>
>>> The "./configure" part of the installation of sage advice this:
>>> database_cremona_ellcurve-20190911:
On Mon, 31 Jan 2022, 20:01 John Cremona, wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 31 Jan 2022, 17:12 Sébastien Labbé, wrote:
>
>> The "./configure" part of the installation of sage advice this:
>> database_cremona_ellcurve-20190911: optional, use "./configure
>> --enable-database_cremona_ellcurve" to
On Mon, 31 Jan 2022, 17:12 Sébastien Labbé, wrote:
> The "./configure" part of the installation of sage advice this:
> database_cremona_ellcurve-20190911: optional, use "./configure
> --enable-database_cremona_ellcurve" to install
>
> Therefore, if I were you, after updating the source
The "./configure" part of the installation of sage advice this:
database_cremona_ellcurve-20190911: optional, use "./configure
--enable-database_cremona_ellcurve" to install
Therefore, if I were you, after updating the source tree with git let's
say, I would do:
make configure
57 matches
Mail list logo
