Re: [sage-release] Sage 8.9 released
## Debian On Debian GNU/Linux 10 (buster), upgraded from SageMath 8.9.rc0 via git and tested SageMath 8.9, both py2 and py3. In both cases: - `make`: ok - `make testlong`: all tests pass! ## Cygwin On Cygwin64, tested SageMath 8.9, both py2 and py3, with the following hardware and operating system: - laptop: HP ProBook 640 G1 - processor: Intel Core i7-4610M, 3.00 GHz - memory: 8 GB - Cygwin64 version: CYGWIN_NT-6.1 3.0.7 (0.338/5/3) - Windows: Windows 7 Professional (64-bit), Service Pack 1 ### Summary Here is a summary following this structure: - [file] # [failures or timeouts during make testlong] --> [result when tested individually]; [ticket references] - py2: - src/sage/doctest/forker.py # 4 doctests failed --> passes when tested individually - src/sage/parallel/map_reduce.py # Timed out after testing finished --> passes when tested individually; might be #27537 - py3 - src/sage/coding/linear_code.py # Timed out --> passes when tested individually; might be #26119 - src/sage/libs/eclib/interface.py # 1 doctest failed --> still fails when tested individually; see #28472 (positive review) - src/sage/rings/finite_rings/finite_field_base.pyx # 1 doctest failed --> passes when tested individually - src/sage/rings/polynomial/polynomial_rational_flint.pyx # 1 doctest failed --> still fails when tested individually; this is #28334 - src/sage_setup/clean.py # 1 doctest failed --> still fails when tested individually Read on for the details for each of py2 and py3. ### Python 2 Upgraded from SageMath 8.9.rc0 via git. Ran `make`: success. Ran `make testlong` and individually retested files that failed or timed out, see below. $ make testlong ... -- sage -t --long --warn-long 87.2 src/sage/doctest/forker.py # 4 doctests failed sage -t --long --warn-long 87.2 src/sage/parallel/map_reduce.py # Timed out after testing finished -- $ ./sage -t --long --warn-long 87.2 src/sage/doctest/forker.py Running doctests with ID 2019-10-01-08-19-19-2f160fbc. Git branch: develop Using --optional=build,dochtml,python2,sage Doctesting 1 file. sage -t --long --warn-long 87.2 src/sage/doctest/forker.py [449 tests, 34.21 s] -- All tests passed! -- Total time for all tests: 81.7 seconds cpu time: 5.5 seconds cumulative wall time: 34.2 seconds $ ./sage -t --long --warn-long 87.2 src/sage/parallel/map_reduce.py Running doctests with ID 2019-10-01-08-21-35-400c0707. Git branch: develop Using --optional=build,dochtml,python2,sage Doctesting 1 file. sage -t --long --warn-long 87.2 src/sage/parallel/map_reduce.py [294 tests, 33.43 s] -- All tests passed! -- Total time for all tests: 34.0 seconds cpu time: 5.2 seconds cumulative wall time: 33.4 seconds ### Python 3 Upgraded from SageMath 8.9.rc0 via git. Ran `make`: success. Ran `make testlong` and individually retested files that failed or timed out, see below. $ make testlong ... -- sage -t --long --warn-long 87.2 src/sage/coding/linear_code.py # Timed out sage -t --long --warn-long 87.2 src/sage/libs/eclib/interface.py # 1 doctest failed sage -t --long --warn-long 87.2 src/sage/rings/finite_rings/finite_field_base.pyx # 1 doctest failed sage -t --long --warn-long 87.2 src/sage/rings/polynomial/polynomial_rational_flint.pyx # 1 doctest failed sage -t --long --warn-long 87.2 src/sage_setup/clean.py # 1 doctest failed -- $ ./sage -t --long --warn-long 87.2 src/sage/coding/linear_code.py Running doctests with ID 2019-10-01-07-58-10-19e3fc53. Git branch: develop Using --optional=build,dochtml,python2,sage Doctesting 1 file. sage -t --long --warn-long 87.2 src/sage/coding/linear_code.py [749 tests, 28.33 s] -- All tests passed! -- Total time for all tests: 29.2 seconds cpu time: 25.8 seconds cumulative wall time: 28.3 seconds $ ./sage -t --long --warn-long 87.2 src/sage/libs/eclib/interface.py Running doctests with ID 2019-10-01-07-58-59-bd646d17. Git branch: develop Using --optional=build,dochtml,python2,sage Doctesting 1 file. sage -t --long --warn-long 87.2 src/sage/libs/eclib/interface.py ** File "src/sage/libs/eclib/interface.py", line 597, in sage.libs.eclib.interface.mwrank_EllipticCurve.saturate Failed example: E.saturation([Q1,Q2])
Re: [sage-release] Sage 8.9 released
It seems that these machines don't have readline development files properly installed. Could you attach config.log ? On Tue, Oct 1, 2019 at 6:38 PM John Cremona wrote: > > For a change instead of updating the git repository to build 8.9 I downloaded > the file 8.9.tar.gz from the Releases section on github. After unpacking and > "make configure" I then did "make". On 6 different machines, all running > ubuntu, all the builds failed with > > Error building Sage. > > The following package(s) may have failed to build (not necessarily > during this run of 'make all-start'): > > * package: python2-2.7.15.p1 > log file: /usr/local/sage/sage-8.9/logs/pkgs/python2-2.7.15.p1.log > build directory: > /usr/local/sage/sage-8.9/local/var/tmp/sage/build/python2-2.7.15.p1 > > One logfile is attached, they all fail the same easy: something about > readline. > > The point here is not so much what I should do to get around this, but > rather, what is wrong with "make configure; make" which led it to happen on > machines where the prerequisites for Sage are certainly all installed since > they all have working versions of 8.8 (and many previous, and in some cases > 8.9 prereleases) built from the github repo. > > John > > On Tue, 1 Oct 2019 at 09:07, Samuel Lelièvre > wrote: >> >> ## Debian >> >> On Debian GNU/Linux 10 (buster), upgraded from >> SageMath 8.9.rc0 via git and tested SageMath 8.9, >> both py2 and py3. In both cases: >> - `make`: ok >> - `make testlong`: all tests pass! >> >> ## Cygwin >> >> On Cygwin64, tested SageMath 8.9, both py2 and py3, >> with the following hardware and operating system: >> >> - laptop: HP ProBook 640 G1 >> - processor: Intel Core i7-4610M, 3.00 GHz >> - memory: 8 GB >> - Cygwin64 version: CYGWIN_NT-6.1 3.0.7 (0.338/5/3) >> - Windows: Windows 7 Professional (64-bit), Service Pack 1 >> >> ### Summary >> >> Here is a summary following this structure: >> - [file] # [failures or timeouts during make testlong] >> --> [result when tested individually]; [ticket references] >> >> - py2: >> - src/sage/doctest/forker.py # 4 doctests failed >> --> passes when tested individually >> - src/sage/parallel/map_reduce.py # Timed out after testing finished >> --> passes when tested individually; might be #27537 >> >> - py3 >> - src/sage/coding/linear_code.py # Timed out >> --> passes when tested individually; might be #26119 >> - src/sage/libs/eclib/interface.py # 1 doctest failed >> --> still fails when tested individually; see #28472 (positive review) >> - src/sage/rings/finite_rings/finite_field_base.pyx # 1 doctest failed >> --> passes when tested individually >> - src/sage/rings/polynomial/polynomial_rational_flint.pyx # 1 doctest >> failed >> --> still fails when tested individually; this is #28334 >> - src/sage_setup/clean.py # 1 doctest failed >> --> still fails when tested individually >> >> Read on for the details for each of py2 and py3. >> >> ### Python 2 >> >> Upgraded from SageMath 8.9.rc0 via git. >> Ran `make`: success. Ran `make testlong` and individually >> retested files that failed or timed out, see below. >> >> $ make testlong >> ... >> -- >> sage -t --long --warn-long 87.2 src/sage/doctest/forker.py # 4 doctests >> failed >> sage -t --long --warn-long 87.2 src/sage/parallel/map_reduce.py # >> Timed out after testing finished >> -- >> >> $ ./sage -t --long --warn-long 87.2 src/sage/doctest/forker.py >> Running doctests with ID 2019-10-01-08-19-19-2f160fbc. >> Git branch: develop >> Using --optional=build,dochtml,python2,sage >> Doctesting 1 file. >> sage -t --long --warn-long 87.2 src/sage/doctest/forker.py >> [449 tests, 34.21 s] >> -- >> All tests passed! >> -- >> Total time for all tests: 81.7 seconds >> cpu time: 5.5 seconds >> cumulative wall time: 34.2 seconds >> >> $ ./sage -t --long --warn-long 87.2 src/sage/parallel/map_reduce.py >> Running doctests with ID 2019-10-01-08-21-35-400c0707. >> Git branch: develop >> Using --optional=build,dochtml,python2,sage >> Doctesting 1 file. >> sage -t --long --warn-long 87.2 src/sage/parallel/map_reduce.py >> [294 tests, 33.43 s] >> -- >> All tests passed! >> -- >> Total time for all tests: 34.0 seconds >> cpu time: 5.2 seconds >> cumulative wall time: 33.4 seconds >> >> ### Python 3 >> >> Upgraded from SageMath 8.9.rc0 via git. >> Ran `make`: success. Ran `make testlong` and individually >> retested files that failed or timed out, see below. >> >> $ make testlong >> ... >>
Re: [sage-release] Sage 8.9 released
On Tue, Oct 1, 2019 at 6:59 PM Dima Pasechnik wrote: > > It seems that these machines don't have readline development files > properly installed. > > Could you attach config.log ? > I mean the "main" config.log, not the ones from package builds. > > On Tue, Oct 1, 2019 at 6:38 PM John Cremona wrote: > > > > For a change instead of updating the git repository to build 8.9 I > > downloaded the file 8.9.tar.gz from the Releases section on github. After > > unpacking and "make configure" I then did "make". On 6 different machines, > > all running ubuntu, all the builds failed with > > > > Error building Sage. > > > > The following package(s) may have failed to build (not necessarily > > during this run of 'make all-start'): > > > > * package: python2-2.7.15.p1 > > log file: /usr/local/sage/sage-8.9/logs/pkgs/python2-2.7.15.p1.log > > build directory: > > /usr/local/sage/sage-8.9/local/var/tmp/sage/build/python2-2.7.15.p1 > > > > One logfile is attached, they all fail the same easy: something about > > readline. > > > > The point here is not so much what I should do to get around this, but > > rather, what is wrong with "make configure; make" which led it to happen on > > machines where the prerequisites for Sage are certainly all installed since > > they all have working versions of 8.8 (and many previous, and in some cases > > 8.9 prereleases) built from the github repo. > > > > John > > > > On Tue, 1 Oct 2019 at 09:07, Samuel Lelièvre > > wrote: > >> > >> ## Debian > >> > >> On Debian GNU/Linux 10 (buster), upgraded from > >> SageMath 8.9.rc0 via git and tested SageMath 8.9, > >> both py2 and py3. In both cases: > >> - `make`: ok > >> - `make testlong`: all tests pass! > >> > >> ## Cygwin > >> > >> On Cygwin64, tested SageMath 8.9, both py2 and py3, > >> with the following hardware and operating system: > >> > >> - laptop: HP ProBook 640 G1 > >> - processor: Intel Core i7-4610M, 3.00 GHz > >> - memory: 8 GB > >> - Cygwin64 version: CYGWIN_NT-6.1 3.0.7 (0.338/5/3) > >> - Windows: Windows 7 Professional (64-bit), Service Pack 1 > >> > >> ### Summary > >> > >> Here is a summary following this structure: > >> - [file] # [failures or timeouts during make testlong] > >> --> [result when tested individually]; [ticket references] > >> > >> - py2: > >> - src/sage/doctest/forker.py # 4 doctests failed > >> --> passes when tested individually > >> - src/sage/parallel/map_reduce.py # Timed out after testing finished > >> --> passes when tested individually; might be #27537 > >> > >> - py3 > >> - src/sage/coding/linear_code.py # Timed out > >> --> passes when tested individually; might be #26119 > >> - src/sage/libs/eclib/interface.py # 1 doctest failed > >> --> still fails when tested individually; see #28472 (positive review) > >> - src/sage/rings/finite_rings/finite_field_base.pyx # 1 doctest failed > >> --> passes when tested individually > >> - src/sage/rings/polynomial/polynomial_rational_flint.pyx # 1 doctest > >> failed > >> --> still fails when tested individually; this is #28334 > >> - src/sage_setup/clean.py # 1 doctest failed > >> --> still fails when tested individually > >> > >> Read on for the details for each of py2 and py3. > >> > >> ### Python 2 > >> > >> Upgraded from SageMath 8.9.rc0 via git. > >> Ran `make`: success. Ran `make testlong` and individually > >> retested files that failed or timed out, see below. > >> > >> $ make testlong > >> ... > >> -- > >> sage -t --long --warn-long 87.2 src/sage/doctest/forker.py # 4 doctests > >> failed > >> sage -t --long --warn-long 87.2 src/sage/parallel/map_reduce.py # > >> Timed out after testing finished > >> -- > >> > >> $ ./sage -t --long --warn-long 87.2 src/sage/doctest/forker.py > >> Running doctests with ID 2019-10-01-08-19-19-2f160fbc. > >> Git branch: develop > >> Using --optional=build,dochtml,python2,sage > >> Doctesting 1 file. > >> sage -t --long --warn-long 87.2 src/sage/doctest/forker.py > >> [449 tests, 34.21 s] > >> -- > >> All tests passed! > >> -- > >> Total time for all tests: 81.7 seconds > >> cpu time: 5.5 seconds > >> cumulative wall time: 34.2 seconds > >> > >> $ ./sage -t --long --warn-long 87.2 src/sage/parallel/map_reduce.py > >> Running doctests with ID 2019-10-01-08-21-35-400c0707. > >> Git branch: develop > >> Using --optional=build,dochtml,python2,sage > >> Doctesting 1 file. > >> sage -t --long --warn-long 87.2 src/sage/parallel/map_reduce.py > >> [294 tests, 33.43 s] > >> -- > >> All tests passed! > >> -- > >> Total time for all test
Re: [sage-release] Sage 8.9 released
On Tue, Oct 1, 2019 at 7:43 PM John Cremona wrote: > > > > On Tue, 1 Oct 2019 at 12:08, Dima Pasechnik wrote: >> >> On Tue, Oct 1, 2019 at 6:59 PM Dima Pasechnik wrote: >> > >> > It seems that these machines don't have readline development files >> > properly installed. >> > >> > Could you attach config.log ? >> > >> I mean the "main" config.log, not the ones from package builds. > > > Here it is. I looks as if some version of readline was downloaded and > installed. no, it says that Sage's readline will be built, because according to the test, there is no ncurses (or tinfo) installed. So I am puzzled that you say that the machine has libreadline-dev installed. Could you post the contents of this package? As well, I'd like to look at the output of $ ldd `find /usr -name libreadline.so` - which should look more or less like: linux-vdso.so.1 (0x7ffc2a2ce000) libtinfo.so.6 => /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libtinfo.so.6 (0x79942a162000) libc.so.6 => /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6 (0x799429fa1000) /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 (0x79942a3f3000) I gather that the test we have for system's ncurses is too restrictive, and doesn't work even though it should... (So this is a potential Sage bug) To continue with this problem: Indeed, readline gets built by Sage, but it's a bit broken, as I gather it's not linked against libtinfo: To check this, please post the output of ldd /usr/local/sage/sage-8.9/local/lib/libreadline.so.6 I don't know why this doesn't work, it might be something went wrong in -- commit 584735d9abe44b079df2566f7f73b6a69aaea0cf Author: Dima Pasechnik Date: Wed May 1 10:58:00 2019 +0100 get termcap library name from the readline's configure (so this might be another Sage bug) Fixing at least one of these bugs might cure the systems you have, but more info is needed... What OS is that, precisely? Sorry for trouble, Dima And Python2 does not do a very good job gathering what extra libs are needed, as its confugure output says checking how to link readline libs... -lreadline -ltermcap but then the error happens in the linking where one does not see -ltermcap, but rather -lcursesw (so this might be a Python2 bug) > > I can of course install more ubuntu packages on these machines (though I do > have libreadline-dev installed already) but that's not quite the point here. > > John > >> >> > >> > On Tue, Oct 1, 2019 at 6:38 PM John Cremona wrote: >> > > >> > > For a change instead of updating the git repository to build 8.9 I >> > > downloaded the file 8.9.tar.gz from the Releases section on github. >> > > After unpacking and "make configure" I then did "make". On 6 different >> > > machines, all running ubuntu, all the builds failed with >> > > >> > > Error building Sage. >> > > >> > > The following package(s) may have failed to build (not necessarily >> > > during this run of 'make all-start'): >> > > >> > > * package: python2-2.7.15.p1 >> > > log file: /usr/local/sage/sage-8.9/logs/pkgs/python2-2.7.15.p1.log >> > > build directory: >> > > /usr/local/sage/sage-8.9/local/var/tmp/sage/build/python2-2.7.15.p1 >> > > >> > > One logfile is attached, they all fail the same easy: something about >> > > readline. >> > > >> > > The point here is not so much what I should do to get around this, but >> > > rather, what is wrong with "make configure; make" which led it to happen >> > > on machines where the prerequisites for Sage are certainly all installed >> > > since they all have working versions of 8.8 (and many previous, and in >> > > some cases 8.9 prereleases) built from the github repo. >> > > >> > > John >> > > >> > > On Tue, 1 Oct 2019 at 09:07, Samuel Lelièvre >> > > wrote: >> > >> >> > >> ## Debian >> > >> >> > >> On Debian GNU/Linux 10 (buster), upgraded from >> > >> SageMath 8.9.rc0 via git and tested SageMath 8.9, >> > >> both py2 and py3. In both cases: >> > >> - `make`: ok >> > >> - `make testlong`: all tests pass! >> > >> >> > >> ## Cygwin >> > >> >> > >> On Cygwin64, tested SageMath 8.9, both py2 and py3, >> > >> with the following hardware and operating system: >> > >> >> > >> - laptop: HP ProBook 640 G1 >> > >> - processor: Intel Core i7-4610M, 3.00 GHz >> > >> - memory: 8 GB >> > >> - Cygwin64 version: CYGWIN_NT-6.1 3.0.7 (0.338/5/3) >> > >> - Windows: Windows 7 Professional (64-bit), Service Pack 1 >> > >> >> > >> ### Summary >> > >> >> > >> Here is a summary following this structure: >> > >> - [file] # [failures or timeouts during make testlong] >> > >> --> [result when tested individually]; [ticket references] >> > >> >> > >> - py2: >> > >> - src/sage/doctest/forker.py # 4 doctests failed >> > >> --> passes when tested individually >> > >> - src/sage/parallel/map_reduce.py # Timed out after testing finished >> > >> --> passes when tested individually; might be #27537 >> > >> >> > >> - py3 >> > >> - src/sage/coding/linear_co
Re: [sage-release] Sage 8.9 released
On Tue, 1 Oct 2019 at 13:42, Dima Pasechnik wrote: > On Tue, Oct 1, 2019 at 7:43 PM John Cremona > wrote: > > > > > > > > On Tue, 1 Oct 2019 at 12:08, Dima Pasechnik wrote: > >> > >> On Tue, Oct 1, 2019 at 6:59 PM Dima Pasechnik > wrote: > >> > > >> > It seems that these machines don't have readline development files > >> > properly installed. > >> > > >> > Could you attach config.log ? > >> > > >> I mean the "main" config.log, not the ones from package builds. > > > > > > Here it is. I looks as if some version of readline was downloaded and > installed. > no, it says that Sage's readline will be built, because according to the > test, > there is no ncurses (or tinfo) installed. > > So I am puzzled that you say that the machine has libreadline-dev > installed. > Could you post the contents of this package? > $ apt show libreadline-dev Package: libreadline-dev Version: 6.3-8ubuntu2 Priority: optional Section: libdevel Source: readline6 Origin: Ubuntu Maintainer: Ubuntu Developers Original-Maintainer: Matthias Klose Bugs: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+filebug Installed-Size: 6,144 B Depends: libreadline6-dev (= 6.3-8ubuntu2) Conflicts: libreadline-gplv2-dev Supported: 9m Download-Size: 992 B APT-Manual-Installed: yes APT-Sources: http://gb.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu xenial/main amd64 Packages Description: GNU readline and history libraries, development files The GNU readline library aids in the consistency of user interface across discrete programs that need to provide a command line interface. . The GNU history library provides a consistent user interface for recalling lines of previously typed input. . This package is a dependency package depending on libreadline6-dev. > As well, I'd like to look at the output of > > $ ldd `find /usr -name libreadline.so` > > - which should look more or less like: > > linux-vdso.so.1 (0x7ffc2a2ce000) > libtinfo.so.6 => /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libtinfo.so.6 (0x79942a162000) > libc.so.6 => /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6 (0x799429fa1000) > /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 (0x79942a3f3000) > It finds the system one as well as two sage installation ones. The system one is like what you expected: /usr/local/sage/sage-8.8/local/lib/libreadline.so: linux-vdso.so.1 => (0x7ffd459fe000) libtinfo.so.6 => /usr/local/sage/sage-8.8/local/lib/libtinfo.so.6 (0x7f9940e43000) libc.so.6 => /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6 (0x7f9940a73000) /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 (0x7f99412d3000) /usr/local/sage/sage-8.9/local/lib/libreadline.so: linux-vdso.so.1 => (0x7ffe9e4ce000) libc.so.6 => /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6 (0x7f00db8e3000) /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 (0x7f00dbf03000) /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libreadline.so: linux-vdso.so.1 => (0x7ffebbdd6000) libtinfo.so.5 => /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libtinfo.so.5 (0x7f2e72d1b000) libc.so.6 => /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6 (0x7f2e7294b000) /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 (0x7f2e73193000) > > I gather that the test we have for system's ncurses is too > restrictive, and doesn't work > even though it should... (So this is a potential Sage bug) > > To continue with this problem: > Indeed, readline gets built by Sage, but it's a bit broken, as I > gather it's not linked > against libtinfo: > > To check this, please post the output of > > $ ldd /usr/local/sage/sage-8.9/local/lib/libreadline.so.6 linux-vdso.so.1 => (0x7ffce3bbe000) libc.so.6 => /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6 (0x7fbee541b000) /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 (0x7fbee5a3b000) > > I don't know why this doesn't work, it might be something went wrong in > -- > commit 584735d9abe44b079df2566f7f73b6a69aaea0cf > Author: Dima Pasechnik > Date: Wed May 1 10:58:00 2019 +0100 > > get termcap library name from the readline's configure > > > (so this might be another Sage bug) > > > Fixing at least one of these bugs might cure the systems you have, but > more info is needed... > What OS is that, precisely? > $ lsb_release -a No LSB modules are available. Distributor ID: Ubuntu Description:Ubuntu 16.04.6 LTS Release:16.04 Codename: xenial (Same for all 6 machines. I have tried to be consistent by reporting answers to your questions all from the same one.) > > Sorry for trouble, > Not at all, thanks for your help. On a more positive note, my python3 build on one of these machines was fine after git pull trac develop. > Dima > > > And Python2 does not do a very good job gathering what extra libs are > needed, > as its confugure output says > > checking how to link readline libs... -lreadline -ltermcap > > but then the error happens in the linking where one does not see > -ltermcap, but > rather -lcursesw > > (so this might be a Python2 bug) > > > > > > > I can of course install more ubu
Re: [sage-release] Sage 8.9 released
Hi John, Do you have libncurses5-dev installed? I guess not, as in your config.log I see conftest.cpp:56:21: fatal error: ncurses.h: No such file or directory and this header is provided by this package. I'd say it's a bug in Ubunty xenial that libreadline-dev does not depend on this package! Could you try installing it, then run make ncurses-clean make readline-clean ./configure and check whether system-wide readline is picked up? If yes, this should cure these machines... Dima On Tue, Oct 1, 2019 at 9:01 PM John Cremona wrote: > > > > On Tue, 1 Oct 2019 at 13:42, Dima Pasechnik wrote: >> >> On Tue, Oct 1, 2019 at 7:43 PM John Cremona wrote: >> > >> > >> > >> > On Tue, 1 Oct 2019 at 12:08, Dima Pasechnik wrote: >> >> >> >> On Tue, Oct 1, 2019 at 6:59 PM Dima Pasechnik wrote: >> >> > >> >> > It seems that these machines don't have readline development files >> >> > properly installed. >> >> > >> >> > Could you attach config.log ? >> >> > >> >> I mean the "main" config.log, not the ones from package builds. >> > >> > >> > Here it is. I looks as if some version of readline was downloaded and >> > installed. >> no, it says that Sage's readline will be built, because according to the >> test, >> there is no ncurses (or tinfo) installed. >> >> So I am puzzled that you say that the machine has libreadline-dev installed. >> Could you post the contents of this package? > > > $ apt show libreadline-dev > Package: libreadline-dev > Version: 6.3-8ubuntu2 > Priority: optional > Section: libdevel > Source: readline6 > Origin: Ubuntu > Maintainer: Ubuntu Developers > Original-Maintainer: Matthias Klose > Bugs: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+filebug > Installed-Size: 6,144 B > Depends: libreadline6-dev (= 6.3-8ubuntu2) > Conflicts: libreadline-gplv2-dev > Supported: 9m > Download-Size: 992 B > APT-Manual-Installed: yes > APT-Sources: http://gb.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu xenial/main amd64 Packages > Description: GNU readline and history libraries, development files > The GNU readline library aids in the consistency of user interface > across discrete programs that need to provide a command line > interface. > . > The GNU history library provides a consistent user interface for > recalling lines of previously typed input. > . > This package is a dependency package depending on libreadline6-dev. > >> >> As well, I'd like to look at the output of >> >> $ ldd `find /usr -name libreadline.so` >> >> - which should look more or less like: >> >> linux-vdso.so.1 (0x7ffc2a2ce000) >> libtinfo.so.6 => /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libtinfo.so.6 (0x79942a162000) >> libc.so.6 => /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6 (0x799429fa1000) >> /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 (0x79942a3f3000) > > > It finds the system one as well as two sage installation ones. The system > one is like what you expected: > > /usr/local/sage/sage-8.8/local/lib/libreadline.so: > linux-vdso.so.1 => (0x7ffd459fe000) > libtinfo.so.6 => /usr/local/sage/sage-8.8/local/lib/libtinfo.so.6 > (0x7f9940e43000) > libc.so.6 => /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6 (0x7f9940a73000) > /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 (0x7f99412d3000) > /usr/local/sage/sage-8.9/local/lib/libreadline.so: > linux-vdso.so.1 => (0x7ffe9e4ce000) > libc.so.6 => /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6 (0x7f00db8e3000) > /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 (0x7f00dbf03000) > /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libreadline.so: > linux-vdso.so.1 => (0x7ffebbdd6000) > libtinfo.so.5 => /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libtinfo.so.5 > (0x7f2e72d1b000) > libc.so.6 => /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6 (0x7f2e7294b000) > /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 (0x7f2e73193000) > >> >> >> I gather that the test we have for system's ncurses is too >> restrictive, and doesn't work >> even though it should... (So this is a potential Sage bug) >> >> To continue with this problem: >> Indeed, readline gets built by Sage, but it's a bit broken, as I >> gather it's not linked >> against libtinfo: >> >> To check this, please post the output of >> > > $ ldd /usr/local/sage/sage-8.9/local/lib/libreadline.so.6 > linux-vdso.so.1 => (0x7ffce3bbe000) > libc.so.6 => /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6 (0x7fbee541b000) > /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 (0x7fbee5a3b000) > > >> >> >> I don't know why this doesn't work, it might be something went wrong in >> -- >> commit 584735d9abe44b079df2566f7f73b6a69aaea0cf >> Author: Dima Pasechnik >> Date: Wed May 1 10:58:00 2019 +0100 >> >> get termcap library name from the readline's configure >> >> >> (so this might be another Sage bug) >> >> >> Fixing at least one of these bugs might cure the systems you have, but >> more info is needed... >> What OS is that, precisely? > > > $ lsb_release -a > No LSB modules are available. > Distributor ID: Ubuntu > Description
Re: [sage-release] Sage 8.9 released
conda packages are available now. We are now patch free except for https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/28533 on Debian based distributions. There are a couple of warnings in werkzeug that was not present when I tested 8.8. Other than that, few test failures from 8.8 remain the same. Isuru. On Tue, Oct 1, 2019 at 8:01 AM John Cremona wrote: > > > On Tue, 1 Oct 2019 at 13:42, Dima Pasechnik wrote: > >> On Tue, Oct 1, 2019 at 7:43 PM John Cremona >> wrote: >> > >> > >> > >> > On Tue, 1 Oct 2019 at 12:08, Dima Pasechnik wrote: >> >> >> >> On Tue, Oct 1, 2019 at 6:59 PM Dima Pasechnik >> wrote: >> >> > >> >> > It seems that these machines don't have readline development files >> >> > properly installed. >> >> > >> >> > Could you attach config.log ? >> >> > >> >> I mean the "main" config.log, not the ones from package builds. >> > >> > >> > Here it is. I looks as if some version of readline was downloaded and >> installed. >> no, it says that Sage's readline will be built, because according to the >> test, >> there is no ncurses (or tinfo) installed. >> >> So I am puzzled that you say that the machine has libreadline-dev >> installed. >> Could you post the contents of this package? >> > > $ apt show libreadline-dev > Package: libreadline-dev > Version: 6.3-8ubuntu2 > Priority: optional > Section: libdevel > Source: readline6 > Origin: Ubuntu > Maintainer: Ubuntu Developers > Original-Maintainer: Matthias Klose > Bugs: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+filebug > Installed-Size: 6,144 B > Depends: libreadline6-dev (= 6.3-8ubuntu2) > Conflicts: libreadline-gplv2-dev > Supported: 9m > Download-Size: 992 B > APT-Manual-Installed: yes > APT-Sources: http://gb.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu xenial/main amd64 > Packages > Description: GNU readline and history libraries, development files > The GNU readline library aids in the consistency of user interface > across discrete programs that need to provide a command line > interface. > . > The GNU history library provides a consistent user interface for > recalling lines of previously typed input. > . > This package is a dependency package depending on libreadline6-dev. > > >> As well, I'd like to look at the output of >> >> $ ldd `find /usr -name libreadline.so` >> >> - which should look more or less like: >> >> linux-vdso.so.1 (0x7ffc2a2ce000) >> libtinfo.so.6 => /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libtinfo.so.6 (0x79942a162000) >> libc.so.6 => /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6 (0x799429fa1000) >> /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 (0x79942a3f3000) >> > > It finds the system one as well as two sage installation ones. The system > one is like what you expected: > > /usr/local/sage/sage-8.8/local/lib/libreadline.so: > linux-vdso.so.1 => (0x7ffd459fe000) > libtinfo.so.6 => /usr/local/sage/sage-8.8/local/lib/libtinfo.so.6 > (0x7f9940e43000) > libc.so.6 => /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6 (0x7f9940a73000) > /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 (0x7f99412d3000) > /usr/local/sage/sage-8.9/local/lib/libreadline.so: > linux-vdso.so.1 => (0x7ffe9e4ce000) > libc.so.6 => /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6 (0x7f00db8e3000) > /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 (0x7f00dbf03000) > /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libreadline.so: > linux-vdso.so.1 => (0x7ffebbdd6000) > libtinfo.so.5 => /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libtinfo.so.5 > (0x7f2e72d1b000) > libc.so.6 => /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6 (0x7f2e7294b000) > /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 (0x7f2e73193000) > > >> >> I gather that the test we have for system's ncurses is too >> restrictive, and doesn't work >> even though it should... (So this is a potential Sage bug) >> >> To continue with this problem: >> Indeed, readline gets built by Sage, but it's a bit broken, as I >> gather it's not linked >> against libtinfo: >> >> To check this, please post the output of >> >> > $ ldd /usr/local/sage/sage-8.9/local/lib/libreadline.so.6 > linux-vdso.so.1 => (0x7ffce3bbe000) > libc.so.6 => /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6 (0x7fbee541b000) > /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 (0x7fbee5a3b000) > > > >> >> I don't know why this doesn't work, it might be something went wrong in >> -- >> commit 584735d9abe44b079df2566f7f73b6a69aaea0cf >> Author: Dima Pasechnik >> Date: Wed May 1 10:58:00 2019 +0100 >> >> get termcap library name from the readline's configure >> >> >> (so this might be another Sage bug) >> >> >> Fixing at least one of these bugs might cure the systems you have, but >> more info is needed... >> What OS is that, precisely? >> > > $ lsb_release -a > No LSB modules are available. > Distributor ID: Ubuntu > Description:Ubuntu 16.04.6 LTS > Release:16.04 > Codename: xenial > > (Same for all 6 machines. I have tried to be consistent by reporting > answers to your questions all from the same one.) >
Re: [sage-release] Sage 8.9 released
> On Sep 29, 2019, at 16:19 , Volker Braun wrote: > > The "master" git branch has been updated to Sage-8.9. As always, you can get > the latest beta version from the "develop" git branch. Alternatively, the > self-contained source tarball is at > http://www.sagemath.org/download-latest.html > > There was no change over 8.9.rc1 Built w/o problems from a fresh clone of the develop branch, and all tests (‘ptestlong’) passed! This is on three macOS systems: 10.11.6 (mid-2015 MBP, Quad-core Core i7) 10.13.6 (2017 iMac Pro, 18-core Xeon W) 10.14.6 (2017 MBP, Quad-core Core i7) Odd that, on 10.13.6, 8.9.rc1 had a repeatable failure testing (src/sage/libs/singular/polynomial.pyx), but not with 8.9. ?!? Justin -- Justin C. Walker, Curmudgeon at Large Director Institute for the Enhancement of the Director's Income -- In mathematics you don't understand things. You just get used to them. --John von Neumann -- -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-release" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-release+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-release/EFF03370-C2ED-41E8-B0C0-0C1A9A74121D%40mac.com.
Re: [sage-release] Sage 8.9 released
Le mar. 1 oct. 2019 à 12:38, John Cremona: > > For a change instead of updating the git repository to build 8.9 I downloaded > the file 8.9.tar.gz from the Releases section on github. After unpacking and > "make configure" I then did "make". Shouldn't there be an extra step between `make configure` and `make`? $ make configure $ ./configure $ make -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-release" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-release+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-release/CAEcArF17gdxyYposoiau0TYOKbZCZOL36bW-KwgNcny7XW7HrQ%40mail.gmail.com.
Re: [sage-release] Sage 8.9 released
something did not work as you installed libncurses5-dev, as you still appear to miss /usr/include/ncurses.h (according to the new log: configure:10315: checking for ncurses.h configure:10315: result: no ) whereas https://packages.ubuntu.com/xenial/amd64/libncurses5-dev/filelist has this file listed... Could you check that /usr/include/ncurses.h is present on the box? On Wed, Oct 2, 2019 at 3:20 AM John Cremona wrote: > > > > On Tue, 1 Oct 2019 at 18:20, Dima Pasechnik wrote: >> >> Hi John, >> >> Do you have >> libncurses5-dev >> installed? > > > No only the package without -dev. > >> >> I guess not, as in your config.log I see >> >> conftest.cpp:56:21: fatal error: ncurses.h: No such file or directory >> >> and this header is provided by this package. >> I'd say it's a bug in Ubunty xenial that libreadline-dev does not >> depend on this package! >> >> Could you try installing it, then run >> >> make ncurses-clean >> make readline-clean >> ./configure > > > I did that. > >> >> >> and check whether system-wide readline is picked up? > > > Now config.log includes these lines > > configure:13881: === checking whether to install the readline SPKG === > configure:13925: checking Installing ncurses? > configure:13928: result: Yes. Install readline as well. > configure:14176: === checking whether to install the pari SPKG === > configure:14222: checking installing gmp/mpir or readline? > configure:14224: result: yes; install pari as well > configure:14565: result: using Sage's pari SPKG > configure:14587: === checking whether to install the pari_nftables SPKG === > configure:14631: checking installing pari? > configure:14634: result: yes; install pari_nftables as well > configure:14675: === checking whether to install the pkgconf SPKG === > configure:14718: checking for pkg-config >= 0.29 > configure:14794: result: /usr/bin/pkg-config > configure:14807: result: using pkg-config from the system > configure:14841: === checking whether to install the eclib SPKG === > configure:14886: checking installing ntl or pari? > configure:14889: result: yes; install eclib as well > configure:14974: === checking whether to install the perl_term_readline_gnu > SPKG === > configure:15066: checking for perl module Term::ReadLine > configure:15076: result: ok > configure:15084: checking Term::ReadLine module... > configure:15088: result: non-GNU > > which does not look right. Complete config.log isattached. > > >> >> >> If yes, this should cure these machines... >> >> Dima >> >> On Tue, Oct 1, 2019 at 9:01 PM John Cremona wrote: >> > >> > >> > >> > On Tue, 1 Oct 2019 at 13:42, Dima Pasechnik wrote: >> >> >> >> On Tue, Oct 1, 2019 at 7:43 PM John Cremona >> >> wrote: >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > On Tue, 1 Oct 2019 at 12:08, Dima Pasechnik wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, Oct 1, 2019 at 6:59 PM Dima Pasechnik >> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> > >> >> >> > It seems that these machines don't have readline development files >> >> >> > properly installed. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Could you attach config.log ? >> >> >> > >> >> >> I mean the "main" config.log, not the ones from package builds. >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > Here it is. I looks as if some version of readline was downloaded and >> >> > installed. >> >> no, it says that Sage's readline will be built, because according to the >> >> test, >> >> there is no ncurses (or tinfo) installed. >> >> >> >> So I am puzzled that you say that the machine has libreadline-dev >> >> installed. >> >> Could you post the contents of this package? >> > >> > >> > $ apt show libreadline-dev >> > Package: libreadline-dev >> > Version: 6.3-8ubuntu2 >> > Priority: optional >> > Section: libdevel >> > Source: readline6 >> > Origin: Ubuntu >> > Maintainer: Ubuntu Developers >> > Original-Maintainer: Matthias Klose >> > Bugs: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+filebug >> > Installed-Size: 6,144 B >> > Depends: libreadline6-dev (= 6.3-8ubuntu2) >> > Conflicts: libreadline-gplv2-dev >> > Supported: 9m >> > Download-Size: 992 B >> > APT-Manual-Installed: yes >> > APT-Sources: http://gb.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu xenial/main amd64 Packages >> > Description: GNU readline and history libraries, development files >> > The GNU readline library aids in the consistency of user interface >> > across discrete programs that need to provide a command line >> > interface. >> > . >> > The GNU history library provides a consistent user interface for >> > recalling lines of previously typed input. >> > . >> > This package is a dependency package depending on libreadline6-dev. >> > >> >> >> >> As well, I'd like to look at the output of >> >> >> >> $ ldd `find /usr -name libreadline.so` >> >> >> >> - which should look more or less like: >> >> >> >> linux-vdso.so.1 (0x7ffc2a2ce000) >> >> libtinfo.so.6 => /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libtinfo.so.6 (0x79942a162000) >> >> libc.so.6 => /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6 (0x799429fa1000) >> >> /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 (0x79942a3f3000) >> > >> > >> > It finds th
