Re: [sage-release] Re: Sage 7.3 released

2016-08-20 Thread leif
Jan Groenewald wrote: > Hi > > On 20 August 2016 at 19:36, Harald Schilly > wrote: > > On Sat, Aug 20, 2016 at 4:40 PM, leif > wrote: > > Is there demand for

Re: [sage-release] Re: Sage 7.3 released

2016-08-20 Thread Jan Groenewald
Hi On 20 August 2016 at 19:36, Harald Schilly wrote: > On Sat, Aug 20, 2016 at 4:40 PM, leif wrote: > > Is there demand for sage-7.3-Ubuntu_{14.04,15.10,16.04}-i686.tar.bz2? > > (After all, Ubuntu stopped "recommending" their 32-bit OS versions

Re: [sage-release] Re: Sage 7.3 released

2016-08-20 Thread Harald Schilly
On Sat, Aug 20, 2016 at 4:40 PM, leif wrote: > Is there demand for sage-7.3-Ubuntu_{14.04,15.10,16.04}-i686.tar.bz2? > (After all, Ubuntu stopped "recommending" their 32-bit OS versions even > on 64-bit machines.) > So, the only thing I can offer are javascript events when

Re: [sage-release] Re: Sage 7.3 released

2016-08-20 Thread leif
Volker Braun wrote: > Some of the 32-bit buildbots (including 14.04) failed to build a binary > because they segfault when building docs; This does not happen for > normal builds. Haven't had time to investigate. > >

Re: [sage-release] Re: Sage 7.3 released

2016-08-18 Thread Volker Braun
Some of the 32-bit buildbots (including 14.04) failed to build a binary because they segfault when building docs; This does not happen for normal builds. Haven't had time to investigate.

Re: [sage-release] Re: Sage 7.3 released

2016-08-17 Thread Jan Groenewald
Hi On 10 August 2016 at 08:09, Jan Groenewald wrote: > Hi > > I'd expected the 32 bit binaries for sage 7.3 ubuntu 14.04, 15.10, 16.04 > to show up here already? Perhaps some transfer fell over? > > http://files.sagemath.org/linux/32bit/index.html > > It only shows 12.04. > > I

[sage-release] Re: Sage 7.3 released

2016-08-09 Thread Volker Braun
binaries are now on the way to the mirrors... On Thursday, August 4, 2016 at 9:22:33 PM UTC+2, Volker Braun wrote: > > The "master" git branch has been updated to Sage-7.3. As always, you can > get the latest beta version from the "develop" git branch. Alternatively, > the self-contained source