Opened 7 years ago
Closed 4 months ago
#14645 closed defect (invalid)
cvxopt 1.1.8 fails to build with SAGE_SPKG_INSTALL_DOCS=yes
Reported by:  strogdon  Owned by:  leif 

Priority:  major  Milestone:  sageduplicate/invalid/wontfix 
Component:  packages: standard  Keywords:  spkg 
Cc:  dimpase, vbraun, schilly, mvngu  Merged in:  
Authors:  Leif Leonhardy, Dima Pasechnik, Jeroen Demeyer  Reviewers:  Dima Pasechnik 
Report Upstream:  N/A  Work issues:  
Branch:  public/14645 (Commits)  Commit:  61f5908f93de4a110c04de76ddc6e8e8f9965373 
Dependencies:  #24972  Stopgaps: 
Description (last modified by )
This is because the prebuilt HTML were removed, and building docs using sphinx was off.
Attachments (1)
Change History (79)
Changed 7 years ago by
comment:1 Changed 7 years ago by
 Cc dimpase vbraun added
 Description modified (diff)
 Status changed from new to needs_review
comment:2 in reply to: ↑ description Changed 7 years ago by
Replying to leif:
 Run more tests in
spkgcheck
(i.e., those insrc/examples/book/
as well).
P.S.: Tested with SAGE_CHECK=yes
on Ubuntu 10.04.4 x86 and x86_64 (FSF GCC 4.7.2 and 4.8.0, respectively).
comment:3 followups: ↓ 4 ↓ 6 Changed 7 years ago by
tested with SAGE_CHECK=yes
on Sage 5.9 OSX10.6.8 (native lapack/blas), all good.
I understand that cvxopt docs not integrated into Sage Reference manual, but are installed in SAGE_LOCAL/share/
. Wouldn't it be good to add a link somewhere in Reference manual to SAGE_LOCAL/share/
? Otherwise it's quite hard to find, unless you know something either not really documented, IMHO.
How does one force doc building/installing? I tried
SAGE_SPKG_INSTALL_DOCS=yes sage f cvxopt1.1.6.p1.spkg
to no avail.
comment:4 in reply to: ↑ 3 ; followup: ↓ 5 Changed 7 years ago by
Replying to dimpase:
I understand that cvxopt docs not integrated into Sage Reference manual, but are installed in
SAGE_LOCAL/share/
. Wouldn't it be good to add a link somewhere in Reference manual toSAGE_LOCAL/share/
? Otherwise it's quite hard to find, unless you know something either not really documented, IMHO.How does one force doc building/installing? I tried
SAGE_SPKG_INSTALL_DOCS=yes sage f cvxopt1.1.6.p1.spkgto no avail.
? They're in $SAGE_ROOT/local/share/doc/cvxopt/html/
, indeed probably hard to find ...
comment:5 in reply to: ↑ 4 Changed 7 years ago by
Replying to leif:
Replying to dimpase:
I understand that cvxopt docs not integrated into Sage Reference manual, but are installed in
SAGE_LOCAL/share/
. Wouldn't it be good to add a link somewhere in Reference manual toSAGE_LOCAL/share/
? Otherwise it's quite hard to find, unless you know something either not really documented, IMHO.How does one force doc building/installing? I tried
SAGE_SPKG_INSTALL_DOCS=yes sage f cvxopt1.1.6.p1.spkgto no avail.
? They're in
$SAGE_ROOT/local/share/doc/cvxopt/html/
, indeed probably hard to find ...
I looked at the install log, and it didn't say anything :) Please add a message saying that docs were installed (and where to)...
comment:6 in reply to: ↑ 3 ; followup: ↓ 7 Changed 7 years ago by
Replying to dimpase:
Wouldn't it be good to add a link somewhere in Reference manual to
SAGE_LOCAL/share/
?
rather, to SAGE_LOCAL/share/doc/
, The main problem is how to add a relative link. One can in principle do ../../../../...../local/share/doc/
somewhere in doc/<LANG>/website/templates/index.html
, but I'm not sure it's a good idea (IMHO the idea to put any docs in $SAGE_LOCAL/share/doc/
is not so good... )
Perhaps at least there should be a symbolic link sage/doc/local
pointing there, although I'm not sure how well this works with webservers.
If this is OK then I can create a patch (hmm, but how? Does hg understand symbolic links? Or it should be in some script, this link creation?)
comment:7 in reply to: ↑ 6 Changed 7 years ago by
 Cc schilly added
 Status changed from needs_review to needs_info
Harald, as this is wwwrelated (docs structure), could you comment please?
comment:8 followup: ↓ 11 Changed 7 years ago by
 Cc mvngu added
Uhm, I can't really follow you, sorry … also, the website is rather independent from what you might want to do inside Sage. Is there anything already existing that's similar to what you try to do here? Also, the documentation is usually maintained by minh, I've CCed him.
What I found is this dedicated page: http://www.sagemath.org/doc/numerical_sage/cvxopt.html
comment:9 followups: ↓ 10 ↓ 14 Changed 7 years ago by
The docs should link to upstream (http://cvxopt.org) and not to a local file that isn't even installed unless you build with SAGE_SPKG_INSTALL_DOCS=yes
. Also, the link in http://www.sagemath.org/doc/numerical_sage/cvxopt.html is broken.
comment:10 in reply to: ↑ 9 Changed 7 years ago by
Replying to vbraun:
The docs should link to upstream (http://cvxopt.org) and not to a local file that isn't even installed unless you build with
SAGE_SPKG_INSTALL_DOCS=yes
. Also, the link in http://www.sagemath.org/doc/numerical_sage/cvxopt.html is broken.
we can have SAGE_LOCAL/share/doc/cvxopt/index.html
redirecting to cvxopt.org
by default, and overwrite it with the local docs if SAGE_SPKG_INSTALL_DOCS=yes
during the cvxopt installation.
But there is much more stuff there than just cvxopt docs. E.g. I have currently, on Sage 5.9,
NTL ipython ppl cvxopt mpfr pwl eclib networkx1.7.dev_20130506064154 sagetex
and again these docs are largely lost to a typical user. I wonder why are they (except cvxopt, that was explicitly installed with SAGE_SPKG_INSTALL_DOCS
on)
there in the first place. It looks like the other packages ignore the value of SAGE_SPKG_INSTALL_DOCS
, no?
comment:11 in reply to: ↑ 8 Changed 7 years ago by
Replying to schilly:
Uhm, I can't really follow you, sorry … also, the website is rather independent from what you might want to do inside Sage.
oops, I meant the setup when the sagenb server is run on a remote host (rather than on localhost); then the docs are served somehow via a web interface, isn't it?
Generally speaking, do Unix webservers allow symbolic links in the docs they serve?
comment:12 Changed 7 years ago by
Any feature requests beyond installing cvxopt should go to a different ticket.
Some packages just install their docs by default. Unfortunately, correct usage of autotools often eludes upsteam, requiring manual copying of documentation if desired. The latter is only attempted if SAGE_SPKG_INSTALL_DOCS
is set.
Apache disallows symlinks by default. Not that that would help with http://sagemath.org, there we serve only the Sage docs and not a complete Sage installation afaik.
comment:13 Changed 7 years ago by
Replying to dimpase:
oops, I meant the setup when the sagenb server is run on a remote host (rather than on localhost); then the docs are served somehow via a web interface, isn't it?
yes, but i don't know enough about sagenb/notebook server to give you any answer, sorry. there are also related issues, e.g. that the sagenb/notebook server doesn't show documentation in other languages – but that's in my eyes outside of the scope of this ticket.
Generally speaking, do Unix webservers allow symbolic links in the docs they serve?
yes and no. the documentation on the sage website is served as static file via apache. Following symlinks is explicitly enabled and it's basically just a copy/paste of the output files. What the notebook server does is different, because it serves the files via its own server – there is also this livedocumentation served via /doc/live/…
So, in conclusion, there are (at least?) three independent things moving around:
 local installation of Sage
 Sage Documentation at sagemath.org/doc (that's where mvgnu and I can weight in, we also have our own script that updates sagemath.org/help.html)
 sagenb.org [and others] /doc/live/ < and the menu that's in the help popup window.
comment:14 in reply to: ↑ 9 ; followup: ↓ 16 Changed 7 years ago by
 Status changed from needs_info to needs_review
Replying to vbraun:
The docs should link to upstream (http://cvxopt.org) and not to a local file that isn't even installed unless you build with
SAGE_SPKG_INSTALL_DOCS=yes
.
actually my idea about the main index.html is not listing individual packages, but just a general link to SAGE_LOCAL/share/doc
for "more stuff"... OK, I will open a separate ticket, and set this one to positive review, as soon as my request for a message saying that docs were installed (and where to) in spkginstall
is honoured.
PS. I've opened #14646 to deal with the main index.html, etc.
comment:15 Changed 7 years ago by
 Status changed from needs_review to needs_work
comment:16 in reply to: ↑ 14 ; followup: ↓ 18 Changed 7 years ago by
Replying to dimpase:
OK, I will open a separate ticket, and set this one to positive review, as soon as my request for a message saying that docs were installed (and where to) in
spkginstall
is honoured.
I was actually first going to add that, but then did not for a couple of reasons:
 I hate absolute paths there (as have unfortunately been added back to (additional) messages in the "main" docbuilding, although the messages there are even worse, since they claim the documents had been built even upon errors), but was 100% sure at least some would complain about a relative path in the message.
 Most other packages don't.
 Then I'd also added a message in case
SAGE_SPKG_INSTALL_DOCS!=yes
, telling that the [HTML] docs have not been installed (and why), and how one can change that, which is pretty redundant, as that should be the same for all spkgs.
Orthogonal to that:
Should I delete previous (potentially outdated) docs regardless of SAGE_SPKG_INSTALL_DOCS
, which could probably be considered unexpected behaviour? (E.g. if one reinstalls an spkg just with different flags, or in order to run its test suite, but forgets to set SAGE_SPKG_INSTALL_DOCS
to the previous setting? Does anyone use that variable on a perpackage basis? To me it seems a few people have it set in their shell rcs, and most people don't use it, probably just because they don't know about... B) )
comment:17 Changed 7 years ago by
 Reviewers set to Dmitrii Pasechnik
 Status changed from needs_work to needs_info
comment:18 in reply to: ↑ 16 ; followup: ↓ 19 Changed 7 years ago by
Replying to leif:
Replying to dimpase:
OK, I will open a separate ticket, and set this one to positive review, as soon as my request for a message saying that docs were installed (and where to) in
spkginstall
is honoured.I was actually first going to add that, but then did not for a couple of reasons:
 I hate absolute paths there (as have unfortunately been added back to (additional) messages in the "main" docbuilding, although the messages there are even worse, since they claim the documents had been built even upon errors), but was 100% sure at least some would complain about a relative path in the message.
well, how about just saying "installed in SAGE_SHARE/doc" ?
 Most other packages don't.
fix them :–) (not on this ticket...)
 Then I'd also added a message in case
SAGE_SPKG_INSTALL_DOCS!=yes
, telling that the [HTML] docs have not been installed (and why), and how one can change that, which is pretty redundant, as that should be the same for all spkgs.Orthogonal to that:
Should I delete previous (potentially outdated) docs regardless of
SAGE_SPKG_INSTALL_DOCS
, which could probably be considered unexpected behaviour? (E.g. if one reinstalls an spkg just with different flags, or in order to run its test suite, but forgets to setSAGE_SPKG_INSTALL_DOCS
to the previous setting? Does anyone use that variable on a perpackage basis? To me it seems a few people have it set in their shell rcs, and most people don't use it, probably just because they don't know about... B) )
if they are in "wrong" location, yes. Otherwise, that's probably too much trouble  although I as proposed on #14646, there ought to be a default SAGE_SHARE/doc/cvxopt/index.html
forwarding to cvxopt website, so, ideally, SAGE_SPKG_INSTALL_DOCS!=yes
would mean putting this forwarding back in place... Well, even more ideally, this functionality shouldn't be on the spkginstall
level, but above, at sage i
level.
comment:19 in reply to: ↑ 18 ; followup: ↓ 20 Changed 7 years ago by
Replying to dimpase:
Replying to leif:
I was actually first going to add that, but then did not for a couple of reasons:
 I hate absolute paths there (as have unfortunately been added back to (additional) messages in the "main" docbuilding, although the messages there are even worse, since they claim the documents had been built even upon errors), but was 100% sure at least some would complain about a relative path in the message.
well, how about just saying "installed in SAGE_SHARE/doc" ?
That's kind of a relative path... [I would have used] ;)
Orthogonal to that:
Should I delete previous (potentially outdated) docs regardless of
SAGE_SPKG_INSTALL_DOCS
, which could probably be considered unexpected behaviour? (E.g. if one reinstalls an spkg just with different flags, or in order to run its test suite, but forgets to setSAGE_SPKG_INSTALL_DOCS
to the previous setting? Does anyone use that variable on a perpackage basis? To me it seems a few people have it set in their shell rcs, and most people don't use it, probably just because they don't know about... B) )if they are in "wrong" location, yes. Otherwise, that's probably too much trouble  although I as proposed on #14646, there ought to be a default
SAGE_SHARE/doc/cvxopt/index.html
forwarding to cvxopt website, so, ideally,SAGE_SPKG_INSTALL_DOCS!=yes
would mean putting this forwarding back in place... Well, even more ideally, this functionality shouldn't be on thespkginstall
level, but above, atsage i
level.
So, should I move the rm rf ...
out of the if [ "$SAGE_SPKG_INSTALL_DOCS" = yes ] ...
branch? (With a separate message on what's going on ... :) )
comment:20 in reply to: ↑ 19 Changed 7 years ago by
Replying to leif: right, go ahead :)
comment:21 Changed 7 years ago by
 Milestone changed from sage5.11 to sage5.12
comment:22 Changed 7 years ago by
 Milestone changed from sage6.1 to sage6.2
comment:23 Changed 6 years ago by
 Milestone changed from sage6.2 to sage6.3
comment:24 Changed 6 years ago by
 Milestone changed from sage6.3 to sage6.4
comment:25 followup: ↓ 26 Changed 4 years ago by
 Milestone changed from sage6.4 to sage7.3
 Status changed from needs_info to needs_work
This needs updating for the current (newstyle package) 1.1.8p1.
comment:26 in reply to: ↑ 25 Changed 4 years ago by
Replying to mkoeppe:
This needs updating for the current (newstyle package) 1.1.8p1.
Yes, people keep updating packages without fixing longstanding issues.
comment:27 Changed 4 years ago by
Let me add that I won't waste my time with rebasing more than three years old patches the next days.
comment:29 Changed 4 years ago by
 Summary changed from cvxopt 1.1.6.p0 fails to build with SAGE_SPKG_INSTALL_DOCS=yes to cvxopt 1.1.8 fails to build with SAGE_SPKG_INSTALL_DOCS=yes
IMHO the idea is that html docs should be built, and then installed, not just copied from provided html/* ?
comment:30 Changed 4 years ago by
 Branch set to public/14645
 Commit set to 22ac42a38f2ab53fe03af2465a6dc54cf04e7338
 Dependencies #12832 deleted
 Description modified (diff)
 Reviewers changed from Dmitrii Pasechnik to Dima Pasechnik
 Status changed from needs_work to needs_review
this is a minimal fix to docs being built/installed. Feel free to add more stuff, or just set it to positive review...
New commits:
22ac42a  minimal fix to ensure that docs build/install

comment:31 Changed 3 years ago by
 Status changed from needs_review to needs_work
Merge conflict with sage 8.1.beta3 needs to be resolved.
comment:32 Changed 3 years ago by
From experience on the sphinx upgrade ticket, you may want to add typing
along with sphinx
. And it should be on the other side of the 
since you don't need to rebuild cvxopt
each time sphinx
or typing
is upgraded.
comment:33 Changed 3 years ago by
You may have to depend on #23023 because of typing
. The ticket is merged but not in a released beta yet.
comment:34 Changed 3 years ago by
 Dependencies set to #23023
comment:35 Changed 3 years ago by
 Commit changed from 22ac42a38f2ab53fe03af2465a6dc54cf04e7338 to 83dd36eeae566f523c7e627ff09b15f94752f38e
Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. This was a forced push. New commits:
ba68e21  minimal fix to ensure that docs build/install

2ea32c1  Upgrade to Sphinx 1.6.3

81253e8  Merge branch 'develop' into sphinx16

7bbfe54  conform typing to the new boiler plate.

6930d06  Remove language specific targeting as upstream has removed at least the only one we are using.

56bffcc  trac 23023:

039c7f9  Merge branch 'develop' into sphinx1.6.3

c488967  Add typing to DOC_DEPENDENCIES

83dd36e  Merge branch 'u/fbissey/sphinx1.6.3' of trac.sagemath.org:sage into cvxdocs

comment:36 followup: ↓ 37 Changed 3 years ago by
rebased and merged with the branch on #23023, but I am getting now
[cvxopt1.1.8.p2] pkg_resources.DistributionNotFound: The 'sphinxcontribwebsupport' distribution was not found and is required by Sphinx [cvxopt1.1.8.p2] make[2]: *** [Makefile:30: html] Error 1
if I try to build with SAGE_SPKG_INSTALL_DOCS=yes
Any idea what sphinxcontribwebsupport
is all about? Is it another sphinx
package we need to distribute, but we don't?
comment:37 in reply to: ↑ 36 Changed 3 years ago by
Replying to dimpase:
rebased and merged with the branch on #23023, but I am getting now
[cvxopt1.1.8.p2] pkg_resources.DistributionNotFound: The 'sphinxcontribwebsupport' distribution was not found and is required by Sphinx [cvxopt1.1.8.p2] make[2]: *** [Makefile:30: html] Error 1if I try to build with
SAGE_SPKG_INSTALL_DOCS=yes
Any idea what
sphinxcontribwebsupport
is all about? Is it anothersphinx
package we need to distribute, but we don't?
Yes it is a runtime dependency. It used to be part of sphinx proper. I had to write a new ebuild for it for Gentoo (actually it was a bit more complicated than that but I digress). So far we didn't appear to have a use for it in sage, cvxopt is the first package to require it.
comment:38 Changed 3 years ago by
Indeed, build with SAGE_SPKG_INSTALL_DOCS=yes
completes after
./sage pip install sphinxcontribwebsupport
Do we thus open another ticket to make it a standard (pip) package?
comment:39 Changed 3 years ago by
It would be acceptable to me for it to be part of this ticket.
comment:40 Changed 3 years ago by
 Dependencies changed from #23023 to #23023, #23764
 Milestone changed from sage7.4 to sage8.1
#23764 deals with the apparent problem with adding sphinxcontribwebsupport
as a package...
comment:41 Changed 3 years ago by
 Commit changed from 83dd36eeae566f523c7e627ff09b15f94752f38e to f97addade521c564a4bf116047aaf00cc5a98ba2
Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:
f97adda  added sphinxcontrib_websupport

comment:42 Changed 3 years ago by
 Dependencies changed from #23023, #23764 to #23023
 Description modified (diff)
added sphinxcontrib_websupport
as a standard package. (As I don't see how a standard package may depend on an optional one).
comment:43 Changed 3 years ago by
 Status changed from needs_work to needs_review
comment:44 Changed 3 years ago by
 Dependencies #23023 deleted
comment:45 followup: ↓ 46 Changed 3 years ago by
 Status changed from needs_review to needs_work
 The dependencies are not quite right:
sphinx
depends onsphinxcontribwebsupport
, not the other way around. Also, it makes little sense to addsphinxcontribwebsupport
as direct dependency ofcvxopt
. Addingsphinx
should be sufficient.
In cvxopt/spkginstall
:
 You can simplify
if [ d $SAGE_LOCAL/share/doc/cvxopt/html ] ; then rm rf $SAGE_LOCAL/share/doc/cvxopt/html fi
to
rm rf "$SAGE_LOCAL/share/doc/cvxopt/html"
 You should quote
"$SAGE_LOCAL"
 It would be good to fix the indentation: use 4 spaces and also indent the comments.
comment:46 in reply to: ↑ 45 ; followup: ↓ 47 Changed 3 years ago by
Replying to jdemeyer:
 The dependencies are not quite right:
sphinx
depends onsphinxcontribwebsupport
, not the other way around.
I don't understand, are you saying one can install sphinxcontribwebsupport
without installing sphinx
first? This sounds strange to me, as the former is a component of the latter.
Also, it makes little sense to add sphinxcontribwebsupport
as direct dependency of cvxopt
. Adding sphinx
should be sufficient.
Only if the dependencies are changed as you proposed.
comment:47 in reply to: ↑ 46 ; followup: ↓ 48 Changed 3 years ago by
Replying to ghdimpase:
I don't understand, are you saying one can install
sphinxcontribwebsupport
without installingsphinx
first?
Yes indeed.
This sounds strange to me, as the former is a component of the latter.
It's not really a component. It's more like an extra package.
comment:48 in reply to: ↑ 47 ; followup: ↓ 49 Changed 3 years ago by
Replying to jdemeyer:
Replying to ghdimpase:
I don't understand, are you saying one can install
sphinxcontribwebsupport
without installingsphinx
first?Yes indeed.
This sounds strange to me, as the former is a component of the latter.
It's not really a component. It's more like an extra package.
sphinxcontribwebuspport provides a Python API to easily integrate Sphinx documentation into your Web application.
From this one concludes that it is useless without sphinx, and thus it is its optional component. Do you know other uses for it? I don't.
comment:49 in reply to: ↑ 48 Changed 3 years ago by
Replying to ghdimpase:
From this one concludes that it is useless without sphinx, and thus it is its optional component.
It's not optional. Even if you don't use it, Sphinx won't run without sphinxcontribwebsupport
.
comment:50 Changed 3 years ago by
huh? This ticket adds sphinxcontribwebsupport as a package! We never shipped it before.
comment:51 followup: ↓ 52 Changed 3 years ago by
Because in sphinx 1.5.x and under it was a part of sphinx. It has been split off in 1.6.
comment:52 in reply to: ↑ 51 Changed 3 years ago by
Replying to fbissey:
Because in sphinx 1.5.x and under it was a part of sphinx. It has been split off in 1.6.
thanks for clarification. This seems to explain the mutual confusion over the dependence hierarchy.
comment:53 Changed 3 years ago by
 Commit changed from f97addade521c564a4bf116047aaf00cc5a98ba2 to 20a33538216652da6fb840ad685020388eba1446
comment:54 followup: ↓ 55 Changed 3 years ago by
 Description modified (diff)
 Milestone changed from sage8.1 to sage8.2
 Status changed from needs_work to needs_review
I have fixed spkginstall as requested, and left the deps as they were.
comment:55 in reply to: ↑ 54 ; followup: ↓ 56 Changed 3 years ago by
 Status changed from needs_review to needs_work
comment:56 in reply to: ↑ 55 Changed 3 years ago by
Replying to jdemeyer:
Replying to ghdimpase:
left the deps as they were.
Why? They are wrong!
No they are not! Why are you saying that Sphinx won't run without sphinxcontribwebsupport
while it is perfectly doing this on the current beta?
Do you think I have added a link to the tarball merely as work of art?
comment:57 Changed 3 years ago by
 Status changed from needs_work to needs_review
comment:58 Changed 3 years ago by
 Status changed from needs_review to needs_work
comment:60 Changed 3 years ago by
 Status changed from positive_review to needs_work
comment:61 Changed 3 years ago by
Please wait... I will explain but you need to give me time to do that.
comment:62 Changed 3 years ago by
I'm splitting the "package sphinxcontribwebsupport
" part of this ticket as #24972.
comment:63 Changed 3 years ago by
 Dependencies set to #24972
 Description modified (diff)
comment:64 Changed 3 years ago by
comment:65 Changed 3 years ago by
 Commit changed from 20a33538216652da6fb840ad685020388eba1446 to 6cb6c93f9a4be82018738c3c75a123a4a431a7f9
comment:66 followup: ↓ 67 Changed 3 years ago by
I would most appreciate no silent switches of the ticket status back to "needs work". I find this very rude.
comment:67 in reply to: ↑ 66 Changed 3 years ago by
Replying to dimpase:
I would most appreciate no silent switches of the ticket status back to "needs work".
I had to set it back to "needs work" because it was wrong and I didn't want anybody accidentally setting this to "positive review" in that state.
The reason for the silence is that I need more time to test things, gather evidence and explain you properly why it is wrong.
comment:68 Changed 3 years ago by
 Description modified (diff)
comment:69 Changed 3 years ago by
 Description modified (diff)
How hard is to add a comment saying "I need more time to explain"? Otherwise I take it as "I have already explained this" and it makes makes me feel stupid.
And I am most probably not the only one who gets upset this way.
comment:70 Changed 3 years ago by
Sorry for that.
comment:71 Changed 3 years ago by
I tried to explain on #24972.
comment:72 Changed 3 years ago by
 Commit changed from 6cb6c93f9a4be82018738c3c75a123a4a431a7f9 to 61f5908f93de4a110c04de76ddc6e8e8f9965373
comment:73 Changed 3 years ago by
 Status changed from needs_work to needs_review
comment:74 Changed 3 years ago by
I wonder whether the call to the sphinxbuild command needs some MathJaxspecific options. This is cause I get source TeX formulas in e.g.
SAGE_LOCAL/share/doc/cvxopt/fftw.html
(compare it with http://cvxopt.org/userguide/fftw.html)
It could also be that some other things need to be done to get MathJax working here, I don't know (perhaps it's not relevant to this ticket)
comment:75 Changed 3 years ago by
 Status changed from needs_review to needs_info
On http://cvxopt.org/userguide/fftw.html there is no MathJax, they generate png images for formulae. E.g.
<dd><p>Replaces the columns of a dense complex matrix with their inverse discrete Fourier transforms: if <code class="docutils literal"><span class="pre">X</span></code> has <img class="math" src="_images/math/e11f2701c4a39c7fe543a6c4150b421d50f1c159.png" alt="n"/> rows,</p> <div class="math"> <p><img src="_images/math/ea898f4dc35c3010225ae66a6d7993bae88b3a56.png" alt="X[k,:] := \frac{1}{n} \sum_{j=0}^{n1} e^{2\pi j k \sqrt{1}/n} X[j,:], \qquad k=0,\ldots,n1."/></p> </div></dd></dl>
I don't know whether we should follow the suit, or leave it as it is, or make it use MathJax...
comment:76 Changed 2 years ago by
ping...
comment:77 Changed 5 months ago by
 Milestone changed from sage8.2 to sageduplicate/invalid/wontfix
 Status changed from needs_info to positive_review
it all works now.
comment:78 Changed 4 months ago by
 Resolution set to invalid
 Status changed from positive_review to closed
Diff between the
.p0
and the.p1
. For reference / review only.