Closed bac7d3ea-3f1b-4826-8464-f0b53d5e12d2 closed 4 years ago
bac7d3ea-3f1b-4826-8464-f0b53d5e12d2
commented
14 years ago Description changed:
---
+++
@@ -71,7 +71,7 @@
|mpmath|Yes|No|-| |
|networkx|Yes|No|-| |
|ntl|Yes|Yes|Pass| |
-|numpy|Yes|No|-| |
+|numpy|No|No|-| First build failure with no solution. See #8086|
|opencdk|Yes|No|-| |
|palp|Yes|No|-| |
|pari|Yes|No|-| |Description changed:
---
+++
@@ -18,7 +18,7 @@
|**Package**|**Build**|**spkg-check present**|**Results**|'''Notes|
|atlas|Yes|Yes|-| |
|blas|Yes|No|-| |
-|boehm_gc|Yes|No|-| |
+|boehm_gc|Yes|No, but #9286 adds one|-| |
|boost|Yes|No|-| |
|cddlib|Yes|Yes|-| |
|cephes|Yes|No|-| |Description changed:
---
+++
@@ -82,7 +82,7 @@
|pycrypto|Yes|No|-| |
|pygments|Yes|No|-| |
|pynac|No|No|-| |
-|python|Yes|No|-| |
+|python|Yes|No, but #9295 adds one|5 failed - see #9299| |
|python_gnutls|Yes|No|-| |
|r|No|Yes|-| |
|ratpoints|Yes|No|-| |
7c09a680-e216-4024-bb8e-9bfd4aa7f313
commented
14 years ago Description changed:
---
+++
@@ -79,7 +79,7 @@
|pil|Yes|No|-| |
|polybori|Yes|No|-| |
|polytopes_db|Yes|No|-| |
-|pycrypto|Yes|No|-| |
+|pycrypto|Yes|No, but #9338 adds one|-| |
|pygments|Yes|No|-| |
|pynac|No|No|-| |
|python|Yes|No, but #9295 adds one|5 failed - see #9299| |Description changed:
---
+++
@@ -79,7 +79,7 @@
|pil|Yes|No|-| |
|polybori|Yes|No|-| |
|polytopes_db|Yes|No|-| |
-|pycrypto|Yes|No, but #9338 adds one|-| |
+|pycrypto|Yes|No, but #9338 adds one|Pass| |
|pygments|Yes|No|-| |
|pynac|No|No|-| |
|python|Yes|No, but #9295 adds one|5 failed - see #9299| |
jhpalmieri
commented
14 years ago Description changed:
---
+++
@@ -91,7 +91,7 @@
|sage|Yes|No|-| |
|sage_scripts|Yes|No|-| |
|sagenb|Yes|No|-| |
-|sagetex|Yes|Yes|-| |
+|sagetex|Yes|Yes|-| see #9351 |
|scipy|No|Yes|-| |
|scipy_sandbox|Yes|No|-| |
|scons|Yes|No|-| |Description changed:
---
+++
@@ -44,7 +44,7 @@
|genus2reduction|Yes|No|-| |
|gfan|Yes|No|-| |
|ghmm|No|No|-| |
-|givaro|Yes|Yes|-| |
+|givaro|Yes|Yes|-| see #9352 |
|gnutls|Yes|No|-| |
|graphs|Yes|No|-| |
|gsl|Yes|Yes|-| |
malb
commented
14 years ago Description changed:
---
+++
@@ -1,9 +1,10 @@
-The purposes of this ticket are to
+The purposes of this ticket are to
+
* Identify what standard packages have an spkg-check file present. At the time the ticket was opened, only 19 packages had spkg-check files out of 98 packages. (Some don't need them, such as where the package just copies a database)
* Document whether the package builds on OpenSolaris x64
-* Document whether the package passes tests when Sage is built with SAGE_CHECK="yes" on OpenSolaris x64.
+* Document whether the package passes tests when Sage is built with SAGE_CHECK="yes" on OpenSolaris x64.
-The following lists:
+The following lists:
* The standard packages in Sage
* Whether the package builds on OpenSolaris x64
@@ -11,103 +12,102 @@
* Test results when running 'make' while SAGE_CHECK="yes" on OpenSolaris x64
* Notes, with ticket number if needed for resolving test issues.
-The aim of this ticket is not to give details about build issues for the packages. For that, see #9026. The aim is to show what packages have spkg-check files, and collect data on what the results from the tests are.
+The aim of this ticket is not to give details about build issues for the packages. For that, see #9026. The aim is to show what packages have spkg-check files, and collect data on what the results from the tests are.
-| | | | | |
-|-----------|---------|----------------------|-----------|--------|
-|**Package**|**Build**|**spkg-check present**|**Results**|'''Notes|
-|atlas|Yes|Yes|-| |
-|blas|Yes|No|-| |
-|boehm_gc|Yes|No, but #9286 adds one|-| |
-|boost|Yes|No|-| |
-|cddlib|Yes|Yes|-| |
-|cephes|Yes|No|-| |
-|cliquer|Yes|No|-| |
-|conway_polynomials|Yes|No|-| |
-|cvxopt|Yes|No|-| |
-|cython|Yes|No|-| |
-|docutils|Yes|No|-| |
-|ecl|No|No|-| |
-|eclib|Yes|Yes|-| |
-|ecm|Yes|Yes|Pass| |
-|elliptic_curves|Yes|No|-| |
-|examples|Yes|No|-| |
-|extcode|Yes|No|-| |
-|f2c|Yes|Yes|Pass| |
-|flint|Yes|Yes|Pass|Needs #9277 for tests to pass|
-|flintqs|Yes|No|-| |
-|fortran|Yes|No|-| |
-|freetype|Yes|No|-| |
-|gap|Yes|No|-| |
-|gd|Yes|No|-| |
-|gdmodule|Yes|No|-| |
-|genus2reduction|Yes|No|-| |
-|gfan|Yes|No|-| |
-|ghmm|No|No|-| |
-|givaro|Yes|Yes|-| see #9352 |
-|gnutls|Yes|No|-| |
-|graphs|Yes|No|-| |
-|gsl|Yes|Yes|-| |
-|iconv|Yes|Yes|| |
-|iml|Yes|No|-| |
-|ipython|Yes|No|-| |
-|jinja|Yes|No|-| |
-|jinja2|Yes|No|-| |
-|lapack|Yes|No|-| |
-|lcalc|Yes|No|-| |
-|libfplll|No|Yes|-| |
-|libgcrypt|Yes|Yes|Pass| |
-|libgpg_error|Yes|No|-| |
-|libm4ri|Yes|No|-| |
-|libpng|Yes|No|-| |
-|linbox|No|No|-| |
-|matplotlib|No|No|-| |
-|maxima|No|No|-| |
-|mercurial|Yes|No|-| |
-|moin|Yes|No|-| |
-|mpfi|Yes|No|-| |
-|mpfr|Yes|Yes|Pass| |
-|mpir|Yes|Yes| | |
-|mpmath|Yes|No|-| |
-|networkx|Yes|No|-| |
-|ntl|Yes|Yes|Pass| |
-|numpy|No|No|-| First build failure with no solution. See #8086|
-|opencdk|Yes|No|-| |
-|palp|Yes|No|-| |
-|pari|Yes|No|-| |
-|pexpect|Yes|No|-| |
-|pil|Yes|No|-| |
-|polybori|Yes|No|-| |
-|polytopes_db|Yes|No|-| |
-|pycrypto|Yes|No, but #9338 adds one|Pass| |
-|pygments|Yes|No|-| |
-|pynac|No|No|-| |
-|python|Yes|No, but #9295 adds one|5 failed - see #9299| |
-|python_gnutls|Yes|No|-| |
-|r|No|Yes|-| |
-|ratpoints|Yes|No|-| |
-|readline|Yes|No|-| |
-|rubiks|Yes|No|-| |
-|sage|Yes|No|-| |
-|sage_scripts|Yes|No|-| |
-|sagenb|Yes|No|-| |
-|sagetex|Yes|Yes|-| see #9351 |
-|scipy|No|Yes|-| |
-|scipy_sandbox|Yes|No|-| |
-|scons|Yes|No|-| |
-|setuptools|Yes|No|-| |
-|singular|Yes|No|-| |
-|sphinx|Yes|No|-| |
-|sqlalchemy|Yes|Yes|-| |
-|sqlite|Yes|No|-| |
-|symmetrica|Yes|No|-| |
-|sympow|Yes|No|-| |
-|sympy|Yes|No|-| |
-|tachyon|Yes|No|-| |
-|termcap|Yes|No|-| |
-|twisted|Yes|No|-| |
-|weave|Yes|No|-| |
-|zlib|Yes|No|-| |
-|zn_poly|Yes|Yes|-| |
-|zodb3|Yes|No|-| |
-
+| | | | | |
+|-------------|-----------|------------------------|-------------|-----------|
+| **Package** | **Build** | **spkg-check present** | **Results** | **Notes** |
+| atlas | Yes | Yes | - | |
+| blas | Yes | No | - | |
+| boehm_gc | Yes | No, but #9286 adds one | - | |
+| boost | Yes | No | - | |
+| cddlib | Yes | Yes | - | |
+| cephes | Yes | No | - | |
+| cliquer | Yes | No | - | |
+| conway_polynomials | Yes | No | - | |
+| cvxopt | Yes | No | - | |
+| cython | Yes | No | - | |
+| docutils | Yes | No | - | |
+| ecl | No | No | - | |
+| eclib | Yes | Yes | - | |
+| ecm | Yes | Yes | Pass | |
+| elliptic_curves | Yes | No | - | |
+| examples | Yes | No | - | |
+| extcode | Yes | No | - | |
+| f2c | Yes | Yes | Pass | |
+| flint | Yes | Yes | Pass | Needs #9277 for tests to pass |
+| flintqs | Yes | No | - | |
+| fortran | Yes | No | - | |
+| freetype | Yes | No | - | |
+| gap | Yes | No | - | |
+| gd | Yes | No | - | |
+| gdmodule | Yes | No | - | |
+| genus2reduction | Yes | No | - | |
+| gfan | Yes | No | - | |
+| ghmm | No | No | - | |
+| givaro | Yes | Yes | - | see #9352 |
+| gnutls | Yes | No | - | |
+| graphs | Yes | No | - | |
+| gsl | Yes | Yes | - | |
+| iconv | Yes | Yes | | |
+| iml | Yes | No | - | |
+| ipython | Yes | No | - | |
+| jinja | Yes | No | - | |
+| jinja2 | Yes | No | - | |
+| lapack | Yes | No | - | |
+| lcalc | Yes | No | - | |
+| libfplll | No | Yes | - | |
+| libgcrypt | Yes | Yes | Pass | |
+| libgpg_error | Yes | No | - | |
+| libm4ri | Yes | !#9475 | - | |
+| libpng | Yes | No | - | |
+| linbox | No | No | - | |
+| matplotlib | No | No | - | |
+| maxima | No | No | - | |
+| mercurial | Yes | No | - | |
+| moin | Yes | No | - | |
+| mpfi | Yes | No | - | |
+| mpfr | Yes | Yes | Pass | |
+| mpir | Yes | Yes | | |
+| mpmath | Yes | No | - | |
+| networkx | Yes | No | - | |
+| ntl | Yes | Yes | Pass | |
+| numpy | No | No | - | First build failure with no solution. See #8086 |
+| opencdk | Yes | No | - | |
+| palp | Yes | No | - | |
+| pari | Yes | No | - | |
+| pexpect | Yes | No | - | |
+| pil | Yes | No | - | |
+| polybori | Yes | No | - | |
+| polytopes_db | Yes | No | - | |
+| pycrypto | Yes | No, but #9338 adds one | Pass | |
+| pygments | Yes | No | - | |
+| pynac | No | No | - | |
+| python | Yes | No, but #9295 adds one | 5 failed - see #9299 | |
+| python_gnutls | Yes | No | - | |
+| r | No | Yes | - | |
+| ratpoints | Yes | No | - | |
+| readline | Yes | No | - | |
+| rubiks | Yes | No | - | |
+| sage | Yes | No | - | |
+| sage_scripts | Yes | No | - | |
+| sagenb | Yes | No | - | |
+| sagetex | Yes | Yes | - | see #9351 |
+| scipy | No | Yes | - | |
+| scipy_sandbox | Yes | No | - | |
+| scons | Yes | No | - | |
+| setuptools | Yes | No | - | |
+| singular | Yes | No | - | |
+| sphinx | Yes | No | - | |
+| sqlalchemy | Yes | Yes | - | |
+| sqlite | Yes | No | - | |
+| symmetrica | Yes | No | - | |
+| sympow | Yes | No | - | |
+| sympy | Yes | No | - | |
+| tachyon | Yes | No | - | |
+| termcap | Yes | No | - | |
+| twisted | Yes | No | - | |
+| weave | Yes | No | - | |
+| zlib | Yes | No | - | |
+| zn_poly | Yes | Yes | - | |
+| zodb3 | Yes | No | - | |NB: It seems to me this ticket would fit better on the wiki since it is essentially a table.
bac7d3ea-3f1b-4826-8464-f0b53d5e12d2
commented
14 years ago Replying to @malb:
NB: It seems to me this ticket would fit better on the wiki since it is essentially a table.
Having it on a ticket seems quite common for this sort of thing. William calls it a 'metaticket'.If it on the Wiki, one can't see when something has been fixed.
Dave
JohnCremona
commented
14 years ago pari itself has a "make test-all" so there is no reason why we should not have a spkg-test in the pari spkg.
bac7d3ea-3f1b-4826-8464-f0b53d5e12d2
commented
14 years ago Description changed:
---
+++
@@ -75,7 +75,7 @@
| numpy | No | No | - | First build failure with no solution. See #8086 |
| opencdk | Yes | No | - | |
| palp | Yes | No | - | |
-| pari | Yes | No | - | |
+| pari | Yes | No, but #9281 adds one | - | |
| pexpect | Yes | No | - | |
| pil | Yes | No | - | |
| polybori | Yes | No | - | |That's now #9281.
83660e46-0051-498b-a8c1-f7a7bd232b5a
commented
14 years ago I think we should separate the presence of spkg-check from testsuite results, i.e. create a single platform-independent ticket that lists spkg improvement progress.
In addition, some packages might do self-tests during build unconditionally, others do not even have a check or test Make target or some equivalent. This should be recorded, too.
I strongly suggest extending sage-spkg s.t. Sage build failure on testsuite errors gets optional, and an option to continue with installation until all packages have been processed, then reporting in summary which packages were tested and which had failures, similar to the doctesting.
More complicated, but nice, would be to separate testsuite logs from install logs. (spkg/installed/PKG_NAME currently at least shows when a self-test was successfully performed, but if it failed, the file is of course removed, since this is considered a build/installation error.)
83660e46-0051-498b-a8c1-f7a7bd232b5a
commented
14 years ago Replying to @nexttime:
(
spkg/installed/PKG_NAMEcurrently at least shows when a self-test was successfully performed, but if it failed, the file is of course removed, since this is considered a build/installation error.)
Ooops, due to a bug in sage-spkg, not even this information is kept. (It is echoed into $BASEDIR/$PKG_NAME, which is deleted later unless one does e.g. sage -i -s ....)
bac7d3ea-3f1b-4826-8464-f0b53d5e12d2
commented
14 years ago Replying to @nexttime:
I think we should separate the presence of
spkg-checkfrom testsuite results, i.e. create a single platform-independent ticket that lists spkg improvement progress.
Feel free. I would not argue with that. Either copy my list, or generate it yourself - all I did was list the packages in $SAGE_ROOT/spkg/standard and use an awk script to generate the table. I guess if you were clever, you could get the script to automatically put "Yes" or "No", depending on whether there was an spkg-check file present! I just did that bit manually.
I just created this ticket, as a way to keep trac of the OpenSolaris issues. However, in order to have any sensible idea of progress on OpenSolaris, I needed to have a record of what packages had no self-checks.
In addition, some packages might do self-tests during build unconditionally, others do not even have a
checkortestMake target or some equivalent. This should be recorded, too.
I seriously think we should consider running the self-tests unconditionally on packages where this takes very little time. Some packages take less than 10 seconds to run the self-tests. I think any package where the self-test take less than 30 or perhaps 60 s on sage.math, should have the self-tests run unconditionally. I posted this as a suggestion on sage-devel, but it got no response - there does not seem to be a huge appetite for testing Sage. I think there is less than a dozen people who really seem to put much effort into improving the testing of Sage.
I strongly suggest extending
sage-spkgs.t. Sage build failure on testsuite errors gets optional, and an option to continue with installation until all packages have been processed, then reporting in summary which packages were tested and which had failures, similar to the doctesting.
Yes, that sounds logical. If you know something builds, you can run make -k I guess, and continue past errors when testing.
More complicated, but nice, would be to separate testsuite logs from install logs.
I would have thought that easier than producing a summary myself. I don't believe that can be rocket science.
bac7d3ea-3f1b-4826-8464-f0b53d5e12d2
commented
14 years ago Description changed:
---
+++
@@ -75,7 +75,7 @@
| numpy | No | No | - | First build failure with no solution. See #8086 |
| opencdk | Yes | No | - | |
| palp | Yes | No | - | |
-| pari | Yes | No, but #9281 adds one | - | |
+| pari | Yes | No, but one attached to #9343| - | |
| pexpect | Yes | No | - | |
| pil | Yes | No | - | |
| polybori | Yes | No | - | |Replying to @sagetrac-drkirkby:
Replying to @nexttime:
In addition, some packages might do self-tests during build unconditionally, others do not even have a
checkortestMake target or some equivalent. This should be recorded, too.
I meant tests unconditionally performed by upstream (i.e. implicitly, without "make check" or alike).
I strongly suggest extending
sage-spkgs.t. Sage build failure on testsuite errors gets optional, and an option to continue with installation until all packages have been processed, then reporting in summary which packages were tested and which had failures, similar to the doctesting.Yes, that sounds logical. If you know something builds, you can run
make -kI guess, and continue past errors when testing.
;-) sage-spkg currently treats testsuite failures as build errors, so make -k would not get (much) further if other packages depend on the "failed" ones; rerunning make just deletes their previous builds, again unpacks these packages and starts rebuilding them from scratch(!) - again "failing", unless one manually touches spkg/installed/$PKG_NAME, which sage-spkg just has deleted...
More complicated, but nice, would be to separate testsuite logs from install logs.
I would have thought that easier than producing a summary myself. I don't believe that can be rocket science.
It's not rocket science (if you consider that complicated), but Sage's current build process is rather unsuited for such. Though one could of course post-process the spkg install logs, where also testsuite output ends up.
In contrast, "ignoring" testsuite failures (even if SAGE_CHECK=yes) and printing a summary report is almost trivial, the biggest "problem" being choosing new appropriate environment variable names or extending the "range" of existing ones with additional values (like SAGE_CHECK_KEEP_GOING=yes vs. SAGE_CHECK=keepgoing; SAGE_CHECK=ignore e.g. would be rather ambiguous, and we unfortunately have to keep some backwards compatibility).
bac7d3ea-3f1b-4826-8464-f0b53d5e12d2
commented
14 years ago Replying to @nexttime:
In contrast, "ignoring" testsuite failures (even if
SAGE_CHECK=yes) and printing a summary report is almost trivial, the biggest "problem" being choosing new appropriate environment variable names or extending the "range" of existing ones with additional values (likeSAGE_CHECK_KEEP_GOING=yesvs.SAGE_CHECK=keepgoing;SAGE_CHECK=ignoree.g. would be rather ambiguous, and we unfortunately have to keep some backwards compatibility).
If it's trivial, then go for it - make a patch. Personally I think
SAGE_CHECK=yes (Same behavior as now, but issued a depreciated warning.)SAGE_CHECK=abort_on_failureSAGE_CHECK=ignore_failures83660e46-0051-498b-a8c1-f7a7bd232b5a
commented
14 years ago Replying to @sagetrac-drkirkby:
If it's trivial, then go for it - make a patch.
The biggest problem more or less unpredictable (and embarrassing) interference with other tickets... ;-)
But I'll do.
Personally I think:
SAGE_CHECK=yes (Same behavior as now, but issued a depreciated warning.)SAGE_CHECK=abort_on_failureSAGE_CHECK=ignore_failuresI'd suggest:
SAGE_CHECK=yes - yes, deprecation warning, equivalent to abort_on_failure I thinkSAGE_CHECK=abort_on_failure - immediate build errorSAGE_CHECK=keep_going - treat them as (build) errors, but try finishing the build firstSAGE_CHECK=ignore_failures - really ignore, just give warnings, report build successSAGE_CHECK=no - do not run testsuites at all (same as empty or unset?)bac7d3ea-3f1b-4826-8464-f0b53d5e12d2
commented
14 years ago Description changed:
---
+++
@@ -99,7 +99,7 @@
| setuptools | Yes | No | - | |
| singular | Yes | No | - | |
| sphinx | Yes | No | - | |
-| sqlalchemy | Yes | Yes | - | |
+| sqlalchemy | Yes | Yes, but totally useless | - | Needs nose to work|
| sqlite | Yes | No | - | |
| symmetrica | Yes | No | - | |
| sympow | Yes | No | - | |Description changed:
---
+++
@@ -1,113 +1,108 @@
The purposes of this ticket are to
* Identify what standard packages have an spkg-check file present. At the time the ticket was opened, only 19 packages had spkg-check files out of 98 packages. (Some don't need them, such as where the package just copies a database)
-* Document whether the package builds on OpenSolaris x64
* Document whether the package passes tests when Sage is built with SAGE_CHECK="yes" on OpenSolaris x64.
+* Document whether the package passes tests when Sage is built with SAGE_CHECK="yes" on Solaris on SPARC, compiled as 32-bit.
+* Document whether the package passes tests when Sage is built with SAGE_CHECK="yes" on Solaris 10 on SPARC, compiled as 64-bit.
+* Add any **brief** notes - giving a reference to a ticket number if possible.
-The following lists:
+The aim of this ticket is not to give details about build issues for the packages. The aim is to show what packages have spkg-check files, and collect data on what the results from the tests are.
-* The standard packages in Sage
-* Whether the package builds on OpenSolaris x64
-* Whether the package has an spkg-check file
-* Test results when running 'make' while SAGE_CHECK="yes" on OpenSolaris x64
-* Notes, with ticket number if needed for resolving test issues.
-
-The aim of this ticket is not to give details about build issues for the packages. For that, see #9026. The aim is to show what packages have spkg-check files, and collect data on what the results from the tests are.
-
-| | | | | |
-|-------------|-----------|------------------------|-------------|-----------|
-| **Package** | **Build** | **spkg-check present** | **Results** | **Notes** |
-| atlas | Yes | Yes | - | |
-| blas | Yes | No | - | |
-| boehm_gc | Yes | No, but #9286 adds one | - | |
-| boost | Yes | No | - | |
-| cddlib | Yes | Yes | - | |
-| cephes | Yes | No | - | |
-| cliquer | Yes | No | - | |
-| conway_polynomials | Yes | No | - | |
-| cvxopt | Yes | No | - | |
-| cython | Yes | No | - | |
-| docutils | Yes | No | - | |
-| ecl | No | No | - | |
-| eclib | Yes | Yes | - | |
-| ecm | Yes | Yes | Pass | |
-| elliptic_curves | Yes | No | - | |
-| examples | Yes | No | - | |
-| extcode | Yes | No | - | |
-| f2c | Yes | Yes | Pass | |
-| flint | Yes | Yes | Pass | Needs #9277 for tests to pass |
-| flintqs | Yes | No | - | |
-| fortran | Yes | No | - | |
-| freetype | Yes | No | - | |
-| gap | Yes | No | - | |
-| gd | Yes | No | - | |
-| gdmodule | Yes | No | - | |
-| genus2reduction | Yes | No | - | |
-| gfan | Yes | No | - | |
-| ghmm | No | No | - | |
-| givaro | Yes | Yes | - | see #9352 |
-| gnutls | Yes | No | - | |
-| graphs | Yes | No | - | |
-| gsl | Yes | Yes | - | |
-| iconv | Yes | Yes | | |
-| iml | Yes | No | - | |
-| ipython | Yes | No | - | |
-| jinja | Yes | No | - | |
-| jinja2 | Yes | No | - | |
-| lapack | Yes | No | - | |
-| lcalc | Yes | No | - | |
-| libfplll | No | Yes | - | |
-| libgcrypt | Yes | Yes | Pass | |
-| libgpg_error | Yes | No | - | |
-| libm4ri | Yes | !#9475 | - | |
-| libpng | Yes | No | - | |
-| linbox | No | No | - | |
-| matplotlib | No | No | - | |
-| maxima | No | No | - | |
-| mercurial | Yes | No | - | |
-| moin | Yes | No | - | |
-| mpfi | Yes | No | - | |
-| mpfr | Yes | Yes | Pass | |
-| mpir | Yes | Yes | | |
-| mpmath | Yes | No | - | |
-| networkx | Yes | No | - | |
-| ntl | Yes | Yes | Pass | |
-| numpy | No | No | - | First build failure with no solution. See #8086 |
-| opencdk | Yes | No | - | |
-| palp | Yes | No | - | |
-| pari | Yes | No, but one attached to #9343| - | |
-| pexpect | Yes | No | - | |
-| pil | Yes | No | - | |
-| polybori | Yes | No | - | |
-| polytopes_db | Yes | No | - | |
-| pycrypto | Yes | No, but #9338 adds one | Pass | |
-| pygments | Yes | No | - | |
-| pynac | No | No | - | |
-| python | Yes | No, but #9295 adds one | 5 failed - see #9299 | |
-| python_gnutls | Yes | No | - | |
-| r | No | Yes | - | |
-| ratpoints | Yes | No | - | |
-| readline | Yes | No | - | |
-| rubiks | Yes | No | - | |
-| sage | Yes | No | - | |
-| sage_scripts | Yes | No | - | |
-| sagenb | Yes | No | - | |
-| sagetex | Yes | Yes | - | see #9351 |
-| scipy | No | Yes | - | |
-| scipy_sandbox | Yes | No | - | |
-| scons | Yes | No | - | |
-| setuptools | Yes | No | - | |
-| singular | Yes | No | - | |
-| sphinx | Yes | No | - | |
-| sqlalchemy | Yes | Yes, but totally useless | - | Needs nose to work|
-| sqlite | Yes | No | - | |
-| symmetrica | Yes | No | - | |
-| sympow | Yes | No | - | |
-| sympy | Yes | No | - | |
-| tachyon | Yes | No | - | |
-| termcap | Yes | No | - | |
-| twisted | Yes | No | - | |
-| weave | Yes | No | - | |
-| zlib | Yes | No | - | |
-| zn_poly | Yes | Yes | - | |
-| zodb3 | Yes | No | - | |
+| | | | | | |
+|-------------|------------------------|---------------------|------------------|------------------|-----------|
+| **Package** | **spkg-check present** | **OpenSolaris x64** | **32-bit SPARC** | **64-bit SPARC** | **Notes** |
+| atlas | Yes | - | | | |
+| blas | No | - | | | |
+| boehm_gc | Yes | - | | | |
+| boost | No | - | | | |
+| cddlib | Yes | - | | | |
+| cephes | No | - | | | |
+| cliquer | No | - | | | |
+| conway_polynomials | No | - | | | |
+| cvxopt | No | - | | | |
+| cython | No | - | | | |
+| docutils | No | - | | | |
+| ecl | No | - | | | |
+| eclib | Yes | - | | | |
+| ecm | Yes | Pass | | | |
+| elliptic_curves | No | - | | | |
+| examples | No | - | | | |
+| extcode | No | - | | | |
+| f2c | Yes | Pass | | | |
+| flint | Yes | Pass | | | |
+| flintqs | No | - | | | |
+| fortran | No | - | | | |
+| freetype | No | - | | | |
+| gap | No | - | | | |
+| gd | No | - | | | |
+| gdmodule | No | - | | | |
+| genus2reduction | No | - | | | |
+| gfan | No | - | | | |
+| ghmm | - | | | |
+| glpk | Yes | Pass | Pass | Pass | |
+| givaro | Yes | - | | | #9352|
+| gnutls | No | - | | | |
+| graphs | No | - | | | |
+| gsl | Yes | - | | | |
+| iconv | Yes | | | | |
+| iml | No | - | | | |
+| ipython | - | | | |
+| jinja | No | - | | | |
+| jinja2 | No | - | | | |
+| lapack | No | - | | | |
+| lcalc | No | - | | | |
+| libfplll | Yes | - | | | |
+| libgcrypt | Yes | Pass | | | |
+| libgpg_error | No | - | | | |
+| libm4ri | #9475 | - | | | |
+| libpng | No | - | | | |
+| linbox | No | - | | | |
+| matplotlib | No | - | | | |
+| maxima | No | - | | | Does not build OpenSolaris|
+| mercurial | No | - | | | |
+| moin | No | - | | | |
+| mpfi | No | - | | | |
+| mpfr | Yes | Pass | | | |
+| mpir | Yes | | | | |
+| mpmath | No | - | | | |
+| networkx | No | - | |
+| ntl | Yes | Pass | | | |
+| numpy | No | - | | | #8086 |
+| opencdk | No | - | | | |
+| palp | No | - | | | |
+| pari | No, but one attached to #9343| - | | | |
+| pexpect | No | - | | | |
+| pil | No | - | | | |
+| polybori | No | - | | | |
+| polytopes_db | No | - | | | |
+| pycrypto | No, but #9338 adds one | Pass | | | |
+| pygments | No | - | | | |
+| pynac | No | - | | | |
+| python | Yes | Fail #9299 | Fail #9297| | |
+| python_gnutls | No | - | | | |
+| r | Yes | - | | | Does not build on OpenSolaris|
+| ratpoints | No | - | | | |
+| readline | No | - | | | |
+| rubiks | No | - | | | |
+| sage | No | - | | | |
+| sage_scripts | No | - | | | |
+| sagenb | No | - | | | |
+| sagetex | Yes | - | | |see #9351 |
+| scipy | Yes | - | | | |
+| scipy_sandbox | No | - | | | |
+| scons | No | - | | | |
+| setuptools | No | - | | | |
+| singular | No | - | | | |
+| sphinx | No | - | | | |
+| sqlalchemy | Yes, but totally useless | - | | | Needs nose to work|
+| sqlite | No | - | | | |
+| symmetrica | No | - | | | |
+| sympow | No | - | | | |
+| sympy | No | - | | | |
+| tachyon | No | - | | | |
+| termcap | No | - | | | |
+| twisted | No | - | | | |
+| weave | No | - | | | |
+| zlib | No | - | | | |
+| zn_poly | Yes | - | | | |
+| zodb3 | No | - | | | |Description changed:
---
+++
@@ -13,7 +13,7 @@
| **Package** | **spkg-check present** | **OpenSolaris x64** | **32-bit SPARC** | **64-bit SPARC** | **Notes** |
| atlas | Yes | - | | | |
| blas | No | - | | | |
-| boehm_gc | Yes | - | | | |
+| boehm_gc | Yes | Pass | Pass| Pass | |
| boost | No | - | | | |
| cddlib | Yes | - | | | |
| cephes | No | - | | | | Description changed:
---
+++
@@ -1,9 +1,9 @@
The purposes of this ticket are to
* Identify what standard packages have an spkg-check file present. At the time the ticket was opened, only 19 packages had spkg-check files out of 98 packages. (Some don't need them, such as where the package just copies a database)
-* Document whether the package passes tests when Sage is built with SAGE_CHECK="yes" on OpenSolaris x64.
-* Document whether the package passes tests when Sage is built with SAGE_CHECK="yes" on Solaris on SPARC, compiled as 32-bit.
-* Document whether the package passes tests when Sage is built with SAGE_CHECK="yes" on Solaris 10 on SPARC, compiled as 64-bit.
+* Document whether the package passes tests when Sage is built with SAGE_CHECK="yes" on OpenSolaris x64. (Currently, neither Maxima or R build on OpenSolaris, and the resulting build is very unstable - segfaulting just trying to run it).
+* Document whether the package passes tests when Sage is built with SAGE_CHECK="yes" on Solaris 10 on SPARC, compiled as 32-bit.
+* Document whether the package passes tests when Sage is built with SAGE_CHECK="yes" on Solaris 10 on SPARC, compiled as 64-bit. (Currently, the 64-bit build of Sage needs various patches, and is rather unstable)
* Add any **brief** notes - giving a reference to a ticket number if possible.
The aim of this ticket is not to give details about build issues for the packages. The aim is to show what packages have spkg-check files, and collect data on what the results from the tests are.
@@ -15,7 +15,7 @@
| blas | No | - | | | |
| boehm_gc | Yes | Pass | Pass| Pass | |
| boost | No | - | | | |
-| cddlib | Yes | - | | | |
+| cddlib | Yes | Pass | Pass | Pass | |
| cephes | No | - | | | |
| cliquer | No | - | | | |
| conway_polynomials | No | - | | | |
@@ -23,12 +23,12 @@
| cython | No | - | | | |
| docutils | No | - | | | |
| ecl | No | - | | | |
-| eclib | Yes | - | | | |
+| eclib | Yes | Pass | Pass | Pass | |
| ecm | Yes | Pass | | | |
| elliptic_curves | No | - | | | |
| examples | No | - | | | |
| extcode | No | - | | | |
-| f2c | Yes | Pass | | | |
+| f2c | Yes | Pass | Pass | Pass | |
| flint | Yes | Pass | | | |
| flintqs | No | - | | | |
| fortran | No | - | | | |Description changed:
---
+++
@@ -40,7 +40,7 @@
| gfan | No | - | | | |
| ghmm | - | | | |
| glpk | Yes | Pass | Pass | Pass | |
-| givaro | Yes | - | | | #9352|
+| givaro | Yes | Does not run reliably |Does not run reliably |Does not run reliably | #9352|
| gnutls | No | - | | | |
| graphs | No | - | | | |
| gsl | Yes | - | | | |Description changed:
---
+++
@@ -43,7 +43,7 @@
| givaro | Yes | Does not run reliably |Does not run reliably |Does not run reliably | #9352|
| gnutls | No | - | | | |
| graphs | No | - | | | |
-| gsl | Yes | - | | | |
+| gsl | Yes, but broken #9531 | Fail | Fail | Fail | GSL in Sage is 3 years old too.|
| iconv | Yes | | | | |
| iml | No | - | | | |
| ipython | - | | | |Replying to @nexttime:
I think we should separate the presence of
spkg-checkfrom testsuite results, i.e. create a single platform-independent ticket that lists spkg improvement progress.
I thought about this some more. I can't see what is wrong with using this ticket to have a simple yes/no whether the package has a spkg-check file. If not, just provide a trac number to where that particular spkg-check file is being discussed. For gsl for instance, we have
"Yes, but broken #9531"
So people interested know that more details of the issue can be found at #9531.
If you feel the need to have longer comments, or more columns devoted to the status of spkg-check then another ticket would be better.
When you look at the spkg-install and spkg-check it is worrying how many simple ignore errors. Sometimes they get reported, but don't exit with 1. Other times they are just ignored.
Dave
83660e46-0051-498b-a8c1-f7a7bd232b5a
commented
14 years ago Replying to @sagetrac-drkirkby:
Replying to @nexttime:
I think we should separate the presence of
spkg-checkfrom testsuite results, i.e. create a single platform-independent ticket that lists spkg improvement progress.I thought about this some more. I can't see what is wrong with using this ticket to have a simple yes/no whether the package has a
spkg-checkfile.
No, you misunderstood me. There's nothing wrong with your ticket, I just thought we should in addition collect spkg information, e.g. on another ticket. I haven't opened a new one yet, though what you collected so far is already worth stealing.
When you look at the
spkg-installandspkg-checkit is worrying how many simple ignore errors. Sometimes they get reported, but don't exit with 1. Other times they are just ignored.
If it was only the spkgs' scripts... ;-)
-Leif
bac7d3ea-3f1b-4826-8464-f0b53d5e12d2
commented
14 years ago Description changed:
---
+++
@@ -43,7 +43,7 @@
| givaro | Yes | Does not run reliably |Does not run reliably |Does not run reliably | #9352|
| gnutls | No | - | | | |
| graphs | No | - | | | |
-| gsl | Yes, but broken #9531 | Fail | Fail | Fail | GSL in Sage is 3 years old too.|
+| gsl | Yes, but broken #9531 | Fail | Fail | Fail | #9533 updates GSL and allows all tests to pass|
| iconv | Yes | | | | |
| iml | No | - | | | |
| ipython | - | | | |Description changed:
---
+++
@@ -56,7 +56,7 @@
| libgpg_error | No | - | | | |
| libm4ri | #9475 | - | | | |
| libpng | No | - | | | |
-| linbox | No | - | | | |
+| linbox | No, see #9613 | - | | | |
| matplotlib | No | - | | | |
| maxima | No | - | | | Does not build OpenSolaris|
| mercurial | No | - | | | |Description changed:
---
+++
@@ -17,7 +17,7 @@
| boost | No | - | | | |
| cddlib | Yes | Pass | Pass | Pass | |
| cephes | No | - | | | |
-| cliquer | No | - | | | |
+| cliquer | No, #9767 | - | | | |
| conway_polynomials | No | - | | | |
| cvxopt | No | - | | | |
| cython | No | - | | | |
@@ -80,8 +80,8 @@
| pynac | No | - | | | |
| python | Yes | Fail #9299 | Fail #9297| | |
| python_gnutls | No | - | | | |
-| r | Yes | - | | | Does not build on OpenSolaris|
-| ratpoints | No | - | | | |
+| r | Yes | - | | | Does not build on OpenSolaris 64-bit (only 32-bit)|
+| ratpoints | No, #9311 | - | | | |
| readline | No | - | | | |
| rubiks | No | - | | | |
| sage | No | - | | | |Description changed:
---
+++
@@ -41,7 +41,7 @@
| ghmm | - | | | |
| glpk | Yes | Pass | Pass | Pass | |
| givaro | Yes | Does not run reliably |Does not run reliably |Does not run reliably | #9352|
-| gnutls | No | - | | | |
+| gnutls | No, see #9308 | - | | |See also |
| graphs | No | - | | | |
| gsl | Yes, but broken #9531 | Fail | Fail | Fail | #9533 updates GSL and allows all tests to pass|
| iconv | Yes | | | | |
ea1d0bf8-c27a-4548-8cb7-de0b1d02441a
commented
9 years ago Description changed:
---
+++
@@ -92,7 +92,7 @@
| scipy_sandbox | No | - | | | |
| scons | No | - | | | |
| setuptools | No | - | | | |
-| singular | No | - | | | |
+| singular | No | - | | | #17488|
| sphinx | No | - | | | |
| sqlalchemy | Yes, but totally useless | - | | | Needs nose to work|
| sqlite | No | - | | | |
mkoeppe
commented
4 years ago Should be closed as outdated.
fchapoton
commented
4 years ago ok, agreed.
The purposes of this ticket are to
The aim of this ticket is not to give details about build issues for the packages. The aim is to show what packages have spkg-check files, and collect data on what the results from the tests are.
CC: @jaapspies @nexttime @jpflori @sagetrac-jakobkroeker @fchapoton
Component: spkg-check
Issue created by migration from https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/9281