Opened 5 years ago

Closed 5 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) Commit: 57380ae5af1202726621d228ce06ee4d6d9b9065
Dependencies: Stopgaps:

Description (last modified by rws)

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 and Number_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 5 years ago by rws

  • Branch set to u/rws/upgrade_to_pynac_0_3_9

comment:2 Changed 5 years ago by rws

  • Authors set to Ralf Stephan
  • Commit set to 4457a3aa273daffb3e2979949b3acf650c857c86
  • Status changed from new to needs_review

New commits:

4457a3a18537: pynac-0.3.9

comment:3 Changed 5 years ago by kcrisman

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 5 years ago by kcrisman

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 5 years ago by kcrisman

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 5 years ago by rws

  • Description modified (diff)
  • Summary changed from upgrade to pynac-0.3.9 to upgrade to pynac-0.3.9.1

comment:7 Changed 5 years ago by git

  • Commit changed from 4457a3aa273daffb3e2979949b3acf650c857c86 to ac542dae4122eb206bfb8465db7893e5abe62d4e

Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:

466837cMerge branch 'develop' into t/18537/upgrade_to_pynac_0_3_9
ac542da18537: bump to 0.3.9.1; fix doctest

comment:8 Changed 5 years ago by git

  • Commit changed from ac542dae4122eb206bfb8465db7893e5abe62d4e to 9c092c7d9f6ce5dd8eb64fa33c30251aa6721135

Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:

9c092c718537: doctest for a GiNaC improvement

comment:9 Changed 5 years ago by git

  • Commit changed from 9c092c7d9f6ce5dd8eb64fa33c30251aa6721135 to 7590e945549076e17cfe433148b85a8069a38a1c

Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:

7590e9418257: previous doctest should reset variable domains

comment:10 Changed 5 years ago by jdemeyer

  • Status changed from needs_review to 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 5 years ago by git

  • Commit changed from 7590e945549076e17cfe433148b85a8069a38a1c to 57380ae5af1202726621d228ce06ee4d6d9b9065

Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:

57380ae18537: reset checksum

comment:12 Changed 5 years ago by jdemeyer

Can you explain why the checksum was wrong before? I'm suspicious of checksums changing without justification...

comment:13 Changed 5 years ago by rws

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 5 years ago by rws

  • Status changed from needs_work to 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 5 years ago by rws

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:16 Changed 5 years ago by vbraun

  • Reviewers set to Volker Braun

lgtm

comment:17 Changed 5 years ago by vbraun

  • Status changed from needs_review to positive_review

comment:18 Changed 5 years ago by vbraun

  • Branch changed from u/rws/upgrade_to_pynac_0_3_9 to 57380ae5af1202726621d228ce06ee4d6d9b9065
  • Resolution set to fixed
  • Status changed from positive_review to closed
Note: See TracTickets for help on using tickets.