Opened 8 years ago
Closed 8 years ago
#18537 closed defect (fixed)
upgrade to pynac-0.3.9.1
Reported by: | rws | Owned by: | |
---|---|---|---|
Priority: | major | Milestone: | sage-6.8 |
Component: | packages: standard | Keywords: | |
Cc: | Merged in: | ||
Authors: | Ralf Stephan | Reviewers: | Volker Braun |
Report Upstream: | N/A | Work issues: | |
Branch: | 57380ae (Commits, GitHub, GitLab) | Commit: | 57380ae5af1202726621d228ce06ee4d6d9b9065 |
Dependencies: | Stopgaps: |
Description (last modified by )
Pynac-0.3.9.1 has:
- fix for part of #18630:
Expression.is_positive/negative
incomplete - many
abs()
additions and fixes (#12588) - pynac now compiles with Python3 headers too (#15530)
- from GiNaC: Fix pow(+(...),2).expand() (#18568)
- from GiNaC:
power::expand()
:(x*p)^c -> x^c * p^c, if p>0
- merge
numeric
andNumber_T
classes
https://github.com/pynac/pynac/releases/download/pynac-0.3.9.1/pynac-0.3.9.1.tar.bz2
Change History (18)
comment:1 Changed 8 years ago by
Branch: | → u/rws/upgrade_to_pynac_0_3_9 |
---|
comment:2 Changed 8 years ago by
Authors: | → Ralf Stephan |
---|---|
Commit: | → 4457a3aa273daffb3e2979949b3acf650c857c86 |
Status: | new → needs_review |
comment:3 Changed 8 years ago by
I can't test the Python3 thing, or rather don't know how. I think it might be useful to have doctests for some of the changes, notably the expand and the abs stuff not in #12588 (there seem to be a few commits including from upstream). Do you anticipate any platforms on which there would be problems installing with these changes? (0.4.0 seems to have more clang stuff so not sure if that would impact Mac or not, since hopefully by the time we hit Pynac only gcc would be in use.)
Waiting on documentation to build... sigh.
comment:4 Changed 8 years ago by
See also my comments on #12588. Patchbot isn't speaking here so I will run long doctests on my own, but just on an older Mac.
comment:5 Changed 8 years ago by
All tests pass. I guess I'd want someone to look at the Pynac-specific changes, since I don't think anyone has reviewed them yet - I may get to that, but don't have time today.
comment:6 Changed 8 years ago by
Description: | modified (diff) |
---|---|
Summary: | upgrade to pynac-0.3.9 → upgrade to pynac-0.3.9.1 |
comment:7 Changed 8 years ago by
Commit: | 4457a3aa273daffb3e2979949b3acf650c857c86 → ac542dae4122eb206bfb8465db7893e5abe62d4e |
---|
comment:8 Changed 8 years ago by
Commit: | ac542dae4122eb206bfb8465db7893e5abe62d4e → 9c092c7d9f6ce5dd8eb64fa33c30251aa6721135 |
---|
Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:
9c092c7 | 18537: doctest for a GiNaC improvement
|
comment:9 Changed 8 years ago by
Commit: | 9c092c7d9f6ce5dd8eb64fa33c30251aa6721135 → 7590e945549076e17cfe433148b85a8069a38a1c |
---|
Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:
7590e94 | 18257: previous doctest should reset variable domains
|
comment:10 Changed 8 years ago by
Status: | needs_review → needs_work |
---|
Found local metadata for pynac-0.3.9.1 Invalid checksum for cached file /usr/local/src/sage-git/upstream/pynac-0.3.9.1.tar.bz2, deleting
comment:11 Changed 8 years ago by
Commit: | 7590e945549076e17cfe433148b85a8069a38a1c → 57380ae5af1202726621d228ce06ee4d6d9b9065 |
---|
Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:
57380ae | 18537: reset checksum
|
comment:12 Changed 8 years ago by
Can you explain why the checksum was wrong before? I'm suspicious of checksums changing without justification...
comment:13 Changed 8 years ago by
I was too so I compared: the sources were correct. It's not the first time either. But no final explanation atm.
comment:14 Changed 8 years ago by
Status: | needs_work → needs_review |
---|
What I can say is that the github file matches exactly what I get locally with make dist
, so the checksum back then was from something different.
comment:15 Changed 8 years ago by
The most likely explanation is that my work process (which gives bleeding edge tarballs locally the same version as the last release), because of switching back and forth between last release and development, lead to a development tarball being the base of the release checksum commit. The change that would least affect the speed of the process would be to double-check before checksumming for the release.
comment:17 Changed 8 years ago by
Status: | needs_review → positive_review |
---|
comment:18 Changed 8 years ago by
Branch: | u/rws/upgrade_to_pynac_0_3_9 → 57380ae5af1202726621d228ce06ee4d6d9b9065 |
---|---|
Resolution: | → fixed |
Status: | positive_review → closed |
New commits:
18537: pynac-0.3.9