FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Redhat > Fedora Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 01-05-2008, 09:29 AM
Kevin Kofler
 
Default Is anyone packaging sage?

Neal Becker <ndbecker2 <at> gmail.com> writes:
> http://sage.math.washington.edu/sage/

This looks interesting, and indeed it would be nice to have this in Fedora. I
don't know of any existing efforts to package it.

One problem will be that they're bundling many third-party components which
should be packaged separately:
http://sage.math.washington.edu/sage/doc/html/inst/intro.html

So the first step is to track down which of these dependencies are in Fedora
already, whether they need any patches to work with SAGE, whether they are
build-time (BuildRequires) dependencies, run-time (Requires) dependencies or
both, whether they're required or optional and package those which are not in
Fedora yet.

I'd do things in the following order:
1. package required build-time dependencies
2. package required run-time dependencies
3. package as many optional build-time dependencies as possible
4. package SAGE itself
5. package optional run-time dependencies (and decide on a case by case basis
whether it makes sense to add them as actual Requires: dependencies to the
package or not)

Please tell us of your progress and link to any review requests as you submit
them. If you need help with the dependencies, please tell us that too.

I think we could really use a Mathematics SIG. Count me as interested (I'm a
PhD student in Mathematics). I think Rex Dieter is likely to be interested too
as he's working as a sysadmin for the Department of Mathematics at UNL. (Of
course we're both already very busy with KDE SIG matters though. ;-) ) And as
the interest in this thread is showing, there's probably more potentially
interested folks. :-)

Kevin Kofler

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 01-05-2008, 09:46 AM
Andreas Bierfert
 
Default Is anyone packaging sage?

On Sat, 5 Jan 2008 10:29:05 +0000 (UTC)
Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler@chello.at> wrote:

> I'd do things in the following order:
> 1. package required build-time dependencies
> 2. package required run-time dependencies
> 3. package as many optional build-time dependencies as possible
> 4. package SAGE itself
> 5. package optional run-time dependencies (and decide on a case by case basis
> whether it makes sense to add them as actual Requires: dependencies to the
> package or not)

Sounds good to me. Would be cool to make a wiki page with these things and let
people assign themselves to the packages that are not handled yet...

> I think we could really use a Mathematics SIG. Count me as interested (I'm a
> PhD student in Mathematics). I think Rex Dieter is likely to be interested
> too as he's working as a sysadmin for the Department of Mathematics at UNL.
> (Of course we're both already very busy with KDE SIG matters though. ;-) )
> And as the interest in this thread is showing, there's probably more
> potentially interested folks. :-)

+1

- Andreas

--
Andreas Bierfert, B.Sc. | http://awbsworld.de | GPG: C58CF1CB
andreas.bierfert@lowlatency.de | http://lowlatency.de | signed/encrypted
phone: +49 2402 102373 | cell: +49 173 5803043 | mail preferred
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 01-05-2008, 09:59 AM
Neal Becker
 
Default Is anyone packaging sage?

Kevin Kofler wrote:

> Neal Becker <ndbecker2 <at> gmail.com> writes:
>> http://sage.math.washington.edu/sage/
>
> This looks interesting, and indeed it would be nice to have this in
> Fedora. I don't know of any existing efforts to package it.
>
> One problem will be that they're bundling many third-party components
> which should be packaged separately:
> http://sage.math.washington.edu/sage/doc/html/inst/intro.html
>
> So the first step is to track down which of these dependencies are in
> Fedora already, whether they need any patches to work with SAGE, whether
> they are build-time (BuildRequires) dependencies, run-time (Requires)
> dependencies or both, whether they're required or optional and package
> those which are not in Fedora yet.
>
> I'd do things in the following order:
> 1. package required build-time dependencies
> 2. package required run-time dependencies
> 3. package as many optional build-time dependencies as possible
> 4. package SAGE itself
> 5. package optional run-time dependencies (and decide on a case by case
> basis whether it makes sense to add them as actual Requires: dependencies
> to the package or not)
>
> Please tell us of your progress and link to any review requests as you
> submit them. If you need help with the dependencies, please tell us that
> too.

Here is some info on Debian's packaging effort. Looks like this would be a
big effort.

http://wiki.sagemath.org/days6/sprint/debian

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 01-05-2008, 10:53 AM
José Matos
 
Default Is anyone packaging sage?

On Saturday 05 January 2008 10:59:59 Neal Becker wrote:
> Here is some info on Debian's packaging effort. *Looks like this would be a
> big effort.
>
> http://wiki.sagemath.org/days6/sprint/debian

I have sage under my radar as well and I would like to help in the (big)
effort.

I have been following the (recent) planet sage
http://planet.sagemath.org/atom.xml

and it has some interesting posts.

--
José Abílio

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 01-05-2008, 06:09 PM
Manuel Wolfshant
 
Default Is anyone packaging sage?

On 01/05/2008 12:06 AM, Jeff Spaleta wrote:

On Jan 4, 2008 1:01 PM, Neal Becker <ndbecker2@gmail.com> wrote:


http://sage.math.washington.edu/sage/



holy crap.... that looks pretty awesome.

I can't be primary maintainer for this, but if you are going to work
on it I can help.



I've uploaded at http://wolfy.fedorapeople.org/sage my first attempt
to create a spec for sage. I am not going to be primary maintainer
either (and I do know that all the prereqs and optionals should end up
in separate packages) 'cause I have no personal use for this program.
However to give a kickstart.
I have also included a patch which removes from the sage install
script the parts which I think that are already available in rawhide.
The build log for a mock build (which dies when trying to compile
python_gnutls) is also there. A quick glance over it makes me think
that a few prereqs could already be packaged and submitted for review

Oh, and btw, I've used Jakub's new gcc-4.3.0 We do target F9, don't we ?
If anyone wishes to merge the efforts with mine, please get in touch
with me.


manuel



--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 01-05-2008, 07:38 PM
Kevin Kofler
 
Default Is anyone packaging sage?

Manuel Wolfshant <wolfy <at> nobugconsulting.ro> writes:
> I have also included a patch which removes from the sage install
> script the parts which I think that are already available in rawhide.

Still, a monolithic solution like this is not going to fly, every single of
these separate projects needs to be packaged separately, usually directly from
upstream, not from the bundled often outdated version in SAGE. Unfortunately,
SAGE tries to be yet another program which tries to be a distro, this sucks.
Out of spkg/standard/*.spkg, as a first guess, only
spkg/standard/*-2.9.1.1.spkg makes sense to package as part of SAGE, that would
be doc, examples, extcode, sage and sage_scripts. And these should be 5
separate packages or subpackages (e.g. sagemath, sagemath-doc,
sagemath-examples, sagemath-extcode, sagemath-scripts).

Moreover, at least in your build.log, it appears also to still build stuff like
ATLAS and gnutls which are already in Fedora (and the gnutls build failed).

Kevin Kofler

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 01-05-2008, 07:52 PM
Manuel Wolfshant
 
Default Is anyone packaging sage?

On 01/05/2008 10:38 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:

Manuel Wolfshant <wolfy <at> nobugconsulting.ro> writes:

I have also included a patch which removes from the sage install
script the parts which I think that are already available in rawhide.



Still, a monolithic solution like this is not going to fly, every single of
these separate projects needs to be packaged separately,
I absolutely agree with you. I have mentioned that I agree with
having all prereqs as separate packages. But I wanted to see things
started and to isolate the BRs


usually directly from
upstream, not from the bundled often outdated version in SAGE.

agree again

Unfortunately,
SAGE tries to be yet another program which tries to be a distro, this sucks.

they just want top be sure that what they ship, works. I can understand
that. That does not mean that I agree.




Out of spkg/standard/*.spkg, as a first guess, only
spkg/standard/*-2.9.1.1.spkg makes sense to package as part of SAGE, that would
be doc, examples, extcode, sage and sage_scripts. And these should be 5
separate packages or subpackages (e.g. sagemath, sagemath-doc,
sagemath-examples, sagemath-extcode, sagemath-scripts).


Moreover, at least in your build.log, it appears also to still build stuff like
ATLAS

I have not noticed it in the repo...

and gnutls which are already in Fedora (and the gnutls build failed).


no, it's python-gnutls that failed

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 01-07-2008, 01:01 PM
Alex Lancaster
 
Default Is anyone packaging sage?

>>>>> "KK" == Kevin Kofler writes:

[...]

KK> Please tell us of your progress and link to any review requests as
KK> you submit them. If you need help with the dependencies, please
KK> tell us that too.

KK> I think we could really use a Mathematics SIG. Count me as
KK> interested (I'm a PhD student in Mathematics). I think Rex Dieter
KK> is likely to be interested too as he's working as a sysadmin for
KK> the Department of Mathematics at UNL. (Of course we're both
KK> already very busy with KDE SIG matters though. ;-) ) And as the
KK> interest in this thread is showing, there's probably more
KK> potentially interested folks. :-)

SAGE looks very cool and is a potential Mathematica-killer (which
would be a very good thing as Mathematica is one of the most
proprietary apps around and has some of the most expensive license
fees and some of the most draconian per-process licensing terms).

So I'd be interested in helping out too. We don't have a Mathematics
SIG per se, but there is a SciTech sig:

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/SciTech

which is pretty quiet enough as it is, more than 50% of the packages
discussed there are mathematical anyway, so I don't see reason to
create a new separate Mathematics SIG. I've added a link to SAGE on
that page. Maybe somebody might like to transfer some of the
discussion here to a subpage of SciTech.

Alex

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 01-07-2008, 02:05 PM
"Debarshi 'Rishi' Ray"
 
Default Is anyone packaging sage?

> Note that the name 'sage' conflicts with another package that already
> lives in Fedora:
>
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/packages/name/sage

For what it is worth, Debian calls it libsage:
http://packages.debian.org/stable/libdevel/libsage-dev

Cheers,
Debarshi

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 02-08-2008, 06:33 PM
"C.M. Connelly"
 
Default Is anyone packaging sage?

"D'R" == Debarshi 'Rishi' Ray <debarshi.ray@gmail.com>

D'R> For what it is worth, Debian calls it libsage:
D'R> http://packages.debian.org/stable/libdevel/libsage-dev

That's actually a completely unrelated package -- libsage is some
sort of OpenGL library.

I'm not sure there is a name yet -- the project doesn't seem to be
at the point where they're ready to upload packages to Debian
proper; they're still working out which bits they can pull from
Debian and which bits need to be packaged.

Details on the Debian packaging front are in a wiki [0]; there's
also a mailing list [1]. It might be nice to see if there could be
a more generalized push for distributions one level above, as much
of the work that isn't specifically related to packaging is going
to be identical. (Identifying components to package, followed by
figuring out which pieces are already available in a distribution
and which aren't but need to be, followed by figuring out how to
package the sage-specific glue that makes all the pieces work
together.) There's actually a discussion about that very thing on
the list. [2]

It seems like there are multiple licensing issues, which isn't a
big shock from my experience packaging mathematical software.

My users are very interested in having access to SAGE (we're
running CentOS 3, with a move to CentOS 5 in the near future), so
I would be very interested in seeing SAGE packaged for Fedora,
EPEL, or one of the other repos.

Claire

[0] <http://wiki.sagemath.org/DebianSAGE>
[1] <http://groups.google.com/group/debian-sage>
[2] <http://groups.google.com/group/debian-sage/browse_thread/thread/4f95d626fd14a045#020ff1482400fefe>

*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
Claire Connelly cmc@math.hmc.edu
Systems Administrator (909) 621-8754
Department of Mathematics Harvey Mudd College
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 01:33 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright ©2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org