-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 481
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Improve gap_packages #13426
Comments
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
New commits:
|
Author: Travis Scrimshaw |
Commit: |
Changed keywords from none to days85 |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
comment:9
to quote email by Alex K. on a GAP developers list:
so we should aim to have as many from the latter list as possible. |
comment:10
|
comment:11
To note, we already have (some form of) The changes to libGAP that will allow IO should be handled in #22626 (or at least be doable afterwards). However, I don't want to hold up the addition of some other packages, a number of which are related to my research (I'm already using |
comment:12
Let me reformulate that better as a question: What would you want to see included that currently is not? |
comment:16
The bigger thing for me right now is I agree completely with points 1 and 2. For point 3, I feel that Some other technical questions:
|
comment:17
Replying to @tscrim:
I am not sure we can enforce that. At the very least the version of gap associated with that version of sage would need to be unique.
After inspection, it seems to be related to how gap is started from sage. That will need to be inspected.
Related to your previous question, RootPaths can be customised (and obviously it is done in sage already), so you could imagine adding a unique location for that version of sage.
I am aware of that problem and I am not sure. I wonder if upstream sees this as a problem or if it is particular to the way sage interface with gap. |
comment:18
Replying to @kiwifb:
I guess we already have this sort of problem with multiple Sage versions and
Doing this, I get:
However, via
So within Sage calls to gap, it seems to use that version.
I propose I'm guessing anything installed as proposed would also be available via libgap. At least via
I have no idea. At least if we had some way to install this using something like |
comment:19
Replying to @tscrim:
I may have misunderstood you. You meant a gap package only available to sage, while with your wording I understood sage-X.Y. Is it correct? So far I haven't been able to dig where sage fiddle with the gap RootPaths. |
comment:20
Replying to @kiwifb:
Let me try to be more precise. Suppose I have two versions of sage, X and Y. I want to be able to install gap packages only available to X but not to Y. Actually, thinking about this more, I don't think this would be a problem as if a gap package doesn't work with a particular version of gap, then it will fail normally. Plus there are probably better ways to compare two versions of a package. So I don't think this is really necessary. |
comment:21
A clean way to resolve this seems to be to pass the token upstream: ask them for a variant of I have opened up an issue #1499 on GAP's github repo. |
comment:22
Replying to @tscrim:
-1 to use |
comment:23
OK after some rather intricate tracking I found why The "-r" parameter passed to
|
comment:24
What we would be doing is setting a custom place for the Sage version of gap packages, and and so we would need a custom root path passed in via @jdemeyer I somewhat see this as installing a Sage package, just within the gap part of Sage. However, I am not really convinced of the feasibility of Upstream does seem amenable to having |
comment:25
Replying to @tscrim:
What's wrong with keeping the current |
comment:27
Replying to @tscrim:
I'm going to work on |
comment:28
Replying to @jdemeyer:
The problem as I understand it is that However, I was asking about your preference for how to tell users to install optional gap packages? I guess your proposal it to tell them untar in |
comment:29
Replying to @dimpase:
Great. I would offer to help, but I have neither the time nor expertise to contribute much. However, let me know if there is anything I can do. I guess if that is in the works, then we can simply tell users to install in a specific place until that method is realized as a workaround. |
comment:30
What is the status of this ticket? It appears to work, and I'd like to have qpa easily accessible. Can I have some cake? |
comment:31
So these added packages don't do any GAP kernel modules, right? |
Reviewer: Dima Pasechnik |
comment:32
I believe so. The only thing that needs to be compiled is cohomolo (https://www.gap-system.org/Packages/cohomolo.html), but that is because of some extra C bindings IIRC. |
comment:33
OK, send it to the bots then. I hope they can get the tar file. |
comment:34
Volker, is there a reason why this ticket did not get merged in the past beta? |
Changed dependencies from #13211 to none |
Changed branch from public/packages/increase_gap_packages-22244 to |
We should include more packages into GAP. This ticket adds the following:
new tarball
CC: @dimpase @miguelmarco @vbraun
Component: packages: optional
Keywords: days85
Author: Travis Scrimshaw
Branch/Commit:
951e7e7
Reviewer: Dima Pasechnik
Issue created by migration from https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/13426
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: