VulK | 9 Aug 05:08 2011
Picon

sage queues

Dear all,
this is my first post to gentoo-science and I am writing because I have some
problems running experimental code from the sage project.
My issue is the following:
I have sci-mathematics/sage-4.7-r2 installed from the  sage-on-gentoo overlay
and I would like to install the combinat queue; I am following these
instructions: http://wiki.sagemath.org/combinat/MercurialStepByStep
The command I am supposed to run is 
# sage -combinat install
unfortunately -combinat is not recognized by sage as a valid option. I
browsed a little bit around the filesystem and I noticed that $SAGE_ROOT is
empty (except for some documentation) while on other installations of sage
(not using the ebuilds) there is plenty of stuff including a devel/combinat
folder.
Is there an option I can use when installing sage to allow for experimental
sources? or is there any other way I can use queues without installing sage
not using portage?
Thanks
VulK

PS: some weird behaviour:

% sage -h
----------------------------------------------------------------------
| Sage Version 4.7, Release Date: 2011-05-23                         |
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Optional arguments:
  file.<sage|py|spyx> -- run given .sage, .py or .spyx files
  -advanced           -- list all command line options
(Continue reading)

fbissey | 9 Aug 06:29 2011
Picon

Re: sage queues

Quoting VulK <etn45p4m <at> gmail.com>:

> Dear all,
> this is my first post to gentoo-science and I am writing because I have some
> problems running experimental code from the sage project.
> My issue is the following:
> I have sci-mathematics/sage-4.7-r2 installed from the  sage-on-gentoo overlay
> and I would like to install the combinat queue; I am following these
> instructions: http://wiki.sagemath.org/combinat/MercurialStepByStep
> The command I am supposed to run is
> # sage -combinat install
> unfortunately -combinat is not recognized by sage as a valid option. I
> browsed a little bit around the filesystem and I noticed that $SAGE_ROOT is
> empty (except for some documentation) while on other installations of sage
> (not using the ebuilds) there is plenty of stuff including a devel/combinat
> folder.
> Is there an option I can use when installing sage to allow for experimental
> sources? or is there any other way I can use queues without installing sage
> not using portage?
> Thanks
> VulK
>
> PS: some weird behaviour:
>
> % sage -h
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> | Sage Version 4.7, Release Date: 2011-05-23                         |
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Optional arguments:
(Continue reading)

VulK | 9 Aug 07:07 2011
Picon

Re: sage queues

Hi,
Thank you for the explanation: I kind of guessed that some part of sage were
omitted to adapt the two packaging system but your explanation gave me the
details I was missing. 
As you said the combinat queue is/should be a real mess of continuous
updates (at least this is what I was told) so I am not entirely sure how well
an e-build would perform, in case you decide to spend some time on it I will
gladly be a guinea pig for testing it out.
I do not understand sage package system in details so my request may just be
stupid but is it possible to produce separate ebuilds for the different part 
of sage that are now stripped? If not for all of those can this be done for the
various packages in $SAGE_ROOT/devel ? If an e-build is not feasible, can
USE flags be used to select which extensions to include at compile time?
Thank you
S.

* fbissey <at> slingshot.co.nz <fbissey <at> slingshot.co.nz> [2011-08-09 16:29:52]:

> Quoting VulK <etn45p4m <at> gmail.com>:
> 
> > Dear all,
> > this is my first post to gentoo-science and I am writing because I have some
> > problems running experimental code from the sage project.
> > My issue is the following:
> > I have sci-mathematics/sage-4.7-r2 installed from the  sage-on-gentoo overlay
> > and I would like to install the combinat queue; I am following these
> > instructions: http://wiki.sagemath.org/combinat/MercurialStepByStep
> > The command I am supposed to run is
> > # sage -combinat install
> > unfortunately -combinat is not recognized by sage as a valid option. I
(Continue reading)

fbissey | 9 Aug 07:21 2011
Picon

Re: sage queues

Quoting VulK <etn45p4m <at> gmail.com>:

> Hi,
> Thank you for the explanation: I kind of guessed that some part of sage were
> omitted to adapt the two packaging system but your explanation gave me the
> details I was missing.
> As you said the combinat queue is/should be a real mess of continuous
> updates (at least this is what I was told) so I am not entirely sure how well
> an e-build would perform, in case you decide to spend some time on it I will
> gladly be a guinea pig for testing it out.
> I do not understand sage package system in details so my request may just be
> stupid but is it possible to produce separate ebuilds for the different part
> of sage that are now stripped? If not for all of those can this be 
> done for the
> various packages in $SAGE_ROOT/devel ? If an e-build is not feasible, can
> USE flags be used to select which extensions to include at compile time?
>
The details are a bit long to explain but everything provided by sage is
currently split. Technically what is missing is some scripts from the spkg
sage_scripts (provided by our sage-baselayout ebuild). Most of the files in
$SAGE_LOCAL/bin of a vanilla install that starts with sage are provided 
by this
spkg. And we omit a lot of them, some are already installed only on use flag
request. We could add more if it was useful and feasible from a package
management perspective.

I must say that talking with sage-developers interested in sage installed with
portage there is a possibility that some stuff may come back in some form once
we figured it out. Something like sage -combinat creates a new sage branch.
There is a possibility that we could allow such a branch to be created 
(Continue reading)

Christopher Schwan | 9 Aug 13:46 2011
Picon
Picon

Re: sage queues

On Tuesday 09 August 2011 01:07:44 you wrote:
> Hi,
> Thank you for the explanation: I kind of guessed that some part of sage were
> omitted to adapt the two packaging system but your explanation gave me the
> details I was missing.
> As you said the combinat queue is/should be a real mess of continuous
> updates (at least this is what I was told) so I am not entirely sure how
> well an e-build would perform, in case you decide to spend some time on it
> I will gladly be a guinea pig for testing it out.
> I do not understand sage package system in details so my request may just be
> stupid but is it possible to produce separate ebuilds for the different
> part of sage that are now stripped? If not for all of those can this be
> done for the various packages in $SAGE_ROOT/devel ? If an e-build is not
> feasible, can USE flags be used to select which extensions to include at
> compile time? Thank you
> S.

If I understand you correctly, you are asking if it is possible to further 
split up the sage ebuild, so that we have individual ebuilds for 
sage.combinat, sage.interfaces and so on. That would make it possible to 
replace individual parts by development versions (which is your original aim) 
- very interesting idea.

Lets assume its done, then I see the following pros and cons:

Pro:
- The option to leave out certain packages and thereby the possiblity to lower 
the number of dependencies (that was my long-term goal)
- Recompiliation of Sage (because of the addition of some patches) would take 
less time
(Continue reading)

VulK | 12 Aug 05:24 2011
Picon

Re: sage queues

* fbissey <at> slingshot.co.nz <fbissey <at> slingshot.co.nz> [2011-08-09 17:21:10]:

> Quoting VulK <etn45p4m <at> gmail.com>:
> 
> > Hi,
> > Thank you for the explanation: I kind of guessed that some part of sage were
> > omitted to adapt the two packaging system but your explanation gave me the
> > details I was missing.
> > As you said the combinat queue is/should be a real mess of continuous
> > updates (at least this is what I was told) so I am not entirely sure how well
> > an e-build would perform, in case you decide to spend some time on it I will
> > gladly be a guinea pig for testing it out.
> > I do not understand sage package system in details so my request may just be
> > stupid but is it possible to produce separate ebuilds for the different part
> > of sage that are now stripped? If not for all of those can this be 
> > done for the
> > various packages in $SAGE_ROOT/devel ? If an e-build is not feasible, can
> > USE flags be used to select which extensions to include at compile time?
> >
> The details are a bit long to explain but everything provided by sage is
> currently split. Technically what is missing is some scripts from the spkg
> sage_scripts (provided by our sage-baselayout ebuild). Most of the files in
> $SAGE_LOCAL/bin of a vanilla install that starts with sage are provided 
> by this
> spkg. And we omit a lot of them, some are already installed only on use flag
> request. We could add more if it was useful and feasible from a package
> management perspective.
> 
> I must say that talking with sage-developers interested in sage installed with
> portage there is a possibility that some stuff may come back in some form once
(Continue reading)

fbissey | 12 Aug 05:38 2011
Picon

Re: sage queues

Quoting VulK <etn45p4m <at> gmail.com>:
>
> Do you mean that in a distant future sage package system *might* become
> portage?
>

Hi VuLK,

there is a distinct possibility. A number of developers are
thinking about it and we have a proof of concept that kind of run
on linux. It still has rough edges and we don't spend as much
time on it as necessary to give it some polish at the moment.

https://bitbucket.org/burcin/sage-prefix/wiki/Home

Francois

Thomas Kahle | 14 Aug 00:40 2011
Picon

la files for sci-libs/mpir

Hi science devs,

An amd64 arch tester asked me to 'remove the .la files' from mpir.  I
must admit that I still don't see through this.  Not all .la files are
evil, or are they?  Should the ones coming with mpir not be installed?

Thanks for any hints,
Thomas

--

-- 
Thomas Kahle
http://dev.gentoo.org/~tomka/
Christopher Schwan | 14 Aug 10:53 2011
Picon
Picon

Re: la files for sci-libs/mpir

On Saturday 13 August 2011 23:40:58 you wrote:
> Hi science devs,
> 
> An amd64 arch tester asked me to 'remove the .la files' from mpir.  I
> must admit that I still don't see through this.  Not all .la files are
> evil, or are they?  Should the ones coming with mpir not be installed?
> 
> Thanks for any hints,
> Thomas

Hi Thomas,

most of the time they are just unnecessary - if you do not install both shared 
and static libraries I suggest to drop them. I am not an expert, but Flameeyes 
has some enlightening post on his blog, e.g.

    http://blog.flameeyes.eu/2008/04/14/what-about-those-la-files

I suggest you simply use the autotool-utils.eclass (mpir uses autotools, 
right?) which take care of them. The eclass' manpage provides a nice example 
how to achieve this behavior (note the use of "static-libs" USE-flag).

Cheers,
Christopher

Christoph Junghans | 14 Aug 17:34 2011
Picon

Re: la files for sci-libs/mpir

Hi Thomas,

2011/8/14 Thomas Kahle <tomka <at> gentoo.org>:
> An amd64 arch tester asked me to 'remove the .la files' from mpir.  I
> must admit that I still don't see through this.  Not all .la files are
> evil, or are they?  Should the ones coming with mpir not be installed?
That depends on what depends on mpir!

Basically the .la files contain all dependencies of a library, but
only a GNU build system using libtool makes use of these files, other
build systems like cmake don't.

However there are two cases, where it is 100% safe to delete the .la files:
1.) mpir comes with a pkg-config (.pc) file.
2.) mpir only installs a shared libs, which have an internal
dependencies memory.

But i guess the use of the autotool-utils eclass together with
static-libs useflag is the best solution.

Cheers,

Christoph

>
> Thanks for any hints,
> Thomas
>
> --
> Thomas Kahle
(Continue reading)


Gmane