sage: 10.0 -> 10.2#283322
Conversation
|
@ofborg build sageWithDoc |
|
Docbuilding failure:
There is also a weird pplpy test failure because exception messages don't get printed, but only on x86_64-darwin. |
|
Thank you for your continued maintenance of sage! I know that this is a lot of work. |
4d1eb56 to
4da6b59
Compare
|
Sage tests pass now. |
|
Rebased on top of the fpylll update. This should be good to go. @timokau @7c6f434c @omasanori are you happy with merging this? It fixes a build failure on master. |
|
Looks good! |
|
Yes, fine by me :) |
|
Thank you! |
|
wonderful! thank you! |
|
I still have problem building sage from unstable: |
|
|
|
Cross-referencing #282383 (comment); it seems to be working now. |
Description of changes
Surprisingly painless upgrade. I'm using an autogenerated tarball containing some configuration files (e.g.,
Pipfile,setup.cfg,requirements.txt) which are generated upstream from Sage-the-distribution files (build/pkgs/) via the bootstrap script. I'm glad I found this tarball, because I like the idea of being isolated from Sage-the-distro files.An alternative would be to pass spkg arguments to the bootstrap script as in sagemath/sage#35950, but we'd need to solve issues like
./bootstrap: line 50: /build/sage-src-10.2/build/bin/sage-package: cannot execute: required file not founddue to the use of#!/usr/bin/env sage-bootstrap-pythonas a shebang in some dependencies of the bootstrap script. There are several ways around that, but all feel kind of hacky given our current package split, so the configure tarball seems best for now.Fixes #282383. Please check ofBorg likes the upgrade before merging.
Things done
nix.conf? (See Nix manual)sandbox = relaxedsandbox = truenix-shell -p nixpkgs-review --run "nixpkgs-review rev HEAD". Note: all changes have to be committed, also see nixpkgs-review usage./result/bin/)Add a 👍 reaction to pull requests you find important.