Opened 7 years ago
Last modified 6 years ago
#18920 closed defect
upgrade Maxima to version >= 5.38.1 — at Version 54
Reported by:  dimpase  Owned by:  

Priority:  major  Milestone:  sage7.6 
Component:  symbolics  Keywords:  
Cc:  rws, jpflori, kcrisman, nbruin, jdemeyer, vbraun, charpent  Merged in:  
Authors:  Dima Pasechnik  Reviewers:  
Report Upstream:  Fixed upstream, in a later stable release.  Work issues:  fix doctests, if any. 
Branch:  public/t18920 (Commits, GitHub, GitLab)  Commit:  a4bf7166892c6dae760cd2cd1c84f5cb9675ef15 
Dependencies:  Stopgaps: 
Description (last modified by )
Change History (54)
comment:1 Changed 7 years ago by
 Cc rws added
 Description modified (diff)
comment:2 Changed 7 years ago by
 Description modified (diff)
comment:3 Changed 7 years ago by
 Description modified (diff)
comment:4 Changed 7 years ago by
comment:5 Changed 7 years ago by
I tried maxima 5.36.0 and reverted (that was with ecl 15.3.7) , not tried 5.36.1 (5.36.0.1 whatever the version number is actually).
Wed Apr 29 11:14:49 2015 >>> scimathematics/maxima5.35.1r2 merge time: 5 minutes and 6 seconds. Fri May 1 10:33:58 2015 >>> scimathematics/maxima5.36.0 merge time: 4 minutes and 52 seconds. Fri May 1 10:42:03 2015 >>> scimathematics/maxima5.35.1r2 merge time: 5 minutes and 8 seconds.
comment:6 Changed 7 years ago by
 Branch set to u/dimpase/eclupdate
 Cc jpflori added
 Commit set to 045d21eeb356b04102696d1aa51776b1330c635a
 Description modified (diff)
The branch is currently not working; to build the new ecl pkg, one has to move patches/implib.patch
out of the way; I tried porting the latter patch to the new ecl, but it produces a makefile error that I don't understand; anyway, it is cygwinspecific.
I cc its author now. J.P., any ideas?
comment:7 Changed 7 years ago by
for the record, I get
... config.status: creating ecl/config.h Configuration complete. To build ECL, issue make in this directory. cd build; make j1 make[1]: Entering directory `/home/dima/software/sage/local/var/tmp/sage/build/ecl15.3.7.p0/src/build' Makefile:192: *** commands commence before first target. Stop. make[1]: Leaving directory `/home/dima/software/sage/local/var/tmp/sage/build/ecl15.3.7.p0/src/build' make: *** [all] Error 2 Error  Failed to build ECL ... exiting
comment:8 Changed 7 years ago by
What I don't understand is whether some patches are in fact results of running autoconf/automake/aclocal on patched configure.ac, Makefile.in, etc.
If yes, then these should be split from the "real" ones to allow for fully automatic creation (and commands needed to run autotools need to be spelled out somewhere in the pkg docs). If no, then I don't see the point of patching configure.ac, Makefile.in, etc in the first place.
comment:9 followup: ↓ 13 Changed 7 years ago by
Look at spkg_src. autotools are not run. But may be the impl platch was copied from an autotool run. The gmp patch deals with the removal of gmp sources from the upstream tarball (the configure script of ecl checks for stuff in that subdirectory so those checks have to be diverted). the impl patch deals with cygwin stuff.
Getting real autoconf patch and running autotools wouldn't be a bad idea but that means you will need to have autotools installed to run spkgsrc. spkgsrc will need to be amended accordingly.
comment:10 followup: ↓ 11 Changed 7 years ago by
I notice that the gmp patch is against configure.ac
while implib is against configure.in
the last one is probably wrong.
comment:11 in reply to: ↑ 10 Changed 7 years ago by
Replying to fbissey:
I notice that the gmp patch is against
configure.ac
while implib is againstconfigure.in
the last one is probably wrong.
the name has changed in version 15.3.7.
comment:12 followup: ↓ 14 Changed 7 years ago by
I am trying to read the stuff from the git commit and of course it is patch of patch, it is not readable as this, you changed it already I see.
comment:13 in reply to: ↑ 9 ; followups: ↓ 15 ↓ 28 Changed 7 years ago by
Replying to fbissey:
Look at spkg_src. autotools are not run. But may be the impl platch was copied from an autotool run. The gmp patch deals with the removal of gmp sources from the upstream tarball (the configure script of ecl checks for stuff in that subdirectory so those checks have to be diverted). the impl patch deals with cygwin stuff.
Getting real autoconf patch and running autotools wouldn't be a bad idea but that means you will need to have autotools installed to run spkgsrc. spkgsrc will need to be amended accordingly.
spkgsrc is outdated anyway.
comment:14 in reply to: ↑ 12 Changed 7 years ago by
Replying to fbissey:
I am trying to read the stuff from the git commit and of course it is patch of patch, it is not readable as this, you changed it already I see.
here they are in a more readable way: https://github.com/dimpase/ecl/commits/sagepatches
comment:15 in reply to: ↑ 13 Changed 7 years ago by
Replying to dimpase:
Replying to fbissey:
Look at spkg_src. autotools are not run. But may be the impl platch was copied from an autotool run. The gmp patch deals with the removal of gmp sources from the upstream tarball (the configure script of ecl checks for stuff in that subdirectory so those checks have to be diverted). the impl patch deals with cygwin stuff.
No, I mean that it is silly and errorprone to rebase by hand patches that are better obtained directly from diffs to output of autoconf/automake/aclocal.
The latter should not be bundled together with the "real" one.
comment:16 Changed 7 years ago by
I have opened https://gitlab.com/embeddablecommonlisp/ecl/issues/93
to hopefully sort out the ECL autotools mess.
comment:17 Changed 7 years ago by
Sorry I have been too busy today to look further into this. I can reproduce your problem with your branch on my mac. I haven't quite identified yet the guilty makefile. I think the problem is not in the top makefile but in one of the subfolders but I haven't identified which one yet.
comment:18 Changed 7 years ago by
To complete the answer you got from upstream: automake is not used (not a crime) but ecl also ship some of its dependencies in the pristine tarball and those come with their own build systems which can use automake. Apart from ffi
we don't want to care about these I think.
comment:19 Changed 7 years ago by
arrghh, that was me mixing of tabs and spaces in src/Makefile.in
patch...
Now all seems to work. I'll post an update soon.
OK, and for the record, src/configure
is generated by autoreconf, that is, one does not need to rebase the corresponding patch manually.
comment:20 Changed 7 years ago by
 Commit changed from 045d21eeb356b04102696d1aa51776b1330c635a to 9fc27ca7ba877a83443c61d22542e49d65096404
Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:
9fc27ca  fixed broken Makefile.in patch (spaces and tabs don't mix), reorganised patches.

comment:21 Changed 7 years ago by
 Cc kcrisman added
comment:22 Changed 7 years ago by
 Commit changed from 9fc27ca7ba877a83443c61d22542e49d65096404 to 82fdf0eaa092b63cc98d97b418721795ea6b5081
Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:
82fdf0e  ported maxima patches; tarball needs bootstrapping; trivial doctests fix

comment:23 followup: ↓ 24 Changed 7 years ago by
 Cc nbruin added
New Maxima output sometimes breaks Sage parser, e.g.
sage t src/sage/calculus/calculus.py ********************************************************************** File "src/sage/calculus/calculus.py", line 373, in sage.calculus.calculus Failed example: taylor(gamma(1/3+x),x,0,3) Exception raised: Traceback (most recent call last): File "/home/dima/software/sage/local/lib/python2.7/sitepackages/sage/doctest/forker.py", line 496, in _run self.compile_and_execute(example, compiler, test.globs) File "/home/dima/software/sage/local/lib/python2.7/sitepackages/sage/doctest/forker.py", line 858, in compile_and_execute exec(compiled, globs) File "<doctest sage.calculus.calculus[100]>", line 1, in <module> taylor(gamma(Integer(1)/Integer(3)+x),x,Integer(0),Integer(3)) File "/home/dima/software/sage/local/lib/python2.7/sitepackages/sage/calculus/functional.py", line 378, in taylor return f.taylor(*args) File "sage/symbolic/expression.pyx", line 4038, in sage.symbolic.expression.Expression.taylor (/home/dima/software/sage/src/build/cythonized/sage/symbolic/expression.cpp:23671) return self.parent()(l) File "sage/structure/parent.pyx", line 1097, in sage.structure.parent.Parent.__call__ (/home/dima/software/sage/src/build/cythonized/sage/structure/parent.c:9546) return mor._call_(x) File "sage/structure/coerce_maps.pyx", line 237, in sage.structure.coerce_maps.NamedConvertMap._call_ (/home/dima/software/sage/src/build/cythonized/sage/structure/coerce_maps.c:5756) cdef Element e = method(C) File "/home/dima/software/sage/local/lib/python2.7/sitepackages/sage/interfaces/maxima_abstract.py", line 1251, in _symbolic_ return R(self._sage_()) File "/home/dima/software/sage/local/lib/python2.7/sitepackages/sage/interfaces/maxima_abstract.py", line 1226, in _sage_ maxima=self.parent()) File "/home/dima/software/sage/local/lib/python2.7/sitepackages/sage/calculus/calculus.py", line 1901, in symbolic_expression_from_maxima_string raise TypeError("unable to make sense of Maxima expression '%s' in Sage"%s) TypeError: unable to make sense of Maxima expression '(1/432)*(72*gamma(1/3)*(psi[2])(1/3)+((72)*euler_gamma^3+((36)*pi*3^(1/2)+(324)*log(3))*euler_gamma^2+((108)*log(3)*pi*3^(1/2)+(18)*pi^2+(486)*log(3)^2+(216)*(psi[1])(1/3))*euler_gamma+((1)*pi^3+((81)*log(3)^2+(36)*(psi[1])(1/3))*pi)*3^(1/2)+(27)*log(3)*pi^2+(243)*log(3)^3+(324)*(psi[1])(1/3)*log(3))*gamma(1/3))*_SAGE_VAR_x^3+(1/24)*((12*euler_gamma^2+(4*pi*3^(1/2)+36*log(3))*euler_gamma+6*log(3)*pi*3^(1/2)+pi^2+27*log(3)^2+12*(psi[1])(1/3))*gamma(1/3))*_SAGE_VAR_x^2+((1)/6)*((6*euler_gamma+pi*3^(1/2)+9*log(3))*gamma(1/3))*_SAGE_VAR_x+gamma(1/3)' in Sage
and
File "src/sage/calculus/calculus.py", line 1746, in sage.calculus.calculus.symbolic_expression_from_maxima_string Failed example: maxima('3*li[2](u)+8*li[33](exp(u))').sage() Exception raised: Traceback (most recent call last): File "/home/dima/software/sage/local/lib/python2.7/sitepackages/sage/doctest/forker.py", line 496, in _run self.compile_and_execute(example, compiler, test.globs) File "/home/dima/software/sage/local/lib/python2.7/sitepackages/sage/doctest/forker.py", line 858, in compile_and_execute exec(compiled, globs) File "<doctest sage.calculus.calculus.symbolic_expression_from_maxima_string[6]>", line 1, in <module> maxima('3*li[2](u)+8*li[33](exp(u))').sage() File "/home/dima/software/sage/local/lib/python2.7/sitepackages/sage/interfaces/interface.py", line 1016, in sage return self._sage_(*args, **kwds) File "/home/dima/software/sage/local/lib/python2.7/sitepackages/sage/interfaces/maxima_abstract.py", line 1226, in _sage_ maxima=self.parent()) File "/home/dima/software/sage/local/lib/python2.7/sitepackages/sage/calculus/calculus.py", line 1901, in symbolic_expression_from_maxima_string raise TypeError("unable to make sense of Maxima expression '%s' in Sage"%s) TypeError: unable to make sense of Maxima expression '8*(li[33])(e^u)+3*(li[2])(u)' in Sage
Is it easy to fix?
comment:24 in reply to: ↑ 23 ; followup: ↓ 34 Changed 7 years ago by
Replying to dimpase:
TypeError: unable to make sense of Maxima expression '(1/432)*(72*gamma(1/3)*(psi[2])(1/3)+((72)*euler_gamma^3+((36)*pi*3^(1/2)+(324)*log(3))*euler_gamma^2+((108)*log(3)*pi*3^(1/2)+(18)*pi^2+(486)*log(3)^2+(216)*(psi[1])(1/3))*euler_gamma+((1)*pi^3+((81)*log(3)^2+(36)*(psi[1])(1/3))*pi)*3^(1/2)+(27)*log(3)*pi^2+(243)*log(3)^3+(324)*(psi[1])(1/3)*log(3))*gamma(1/3))*_SAGE_VAR_x^3+(1/24)*((12*euler_gamma^2+(4*pi*3^(1/2)+36*log(3))*euler_gamma+6*log(3)*pi*3^(1/2)+pi^2+27*log(3)^2+12*(psi[1])(1/3))*gamma(1/3))*_SAGE_VAR_x^2+((1)/6)*((6*euler_gamma+pi*3^(1/2)+9*log(3))*gamma(1/3))*_SAGE_VAR_x+gamma(1/3)' in Sageand
TypeError: unable to make sense of Maxima expression '8*(li[33])(e^u)+3*(li[2])(u)' in Sage
No, it is not very easy to fix. We rewrite li[n](
to polylog(n,
and the same for psi[n](
to psi(n,
. This string matching obviously completely breaks if maxima starts spelling this as (li[n])(x)
. Quite frankly, that's an insane spelling, so perhaps the preferred approach is to clarify with the maxima folks if they really intend this. It might be an unforeseen byproduct of some other change that they prefer to fix themselves, in which case we shouldn't waste time.
If they insist this is a reasonable spelling, I think we can work around it, but it'll be a bit of real work. Note that we can handle calls to parenthesized functions:
sage: from sage.calculus.calculus import symbolic_expression_from_maxima_string as sefms sage: sefms('(sin)(x)') sin(x)
so as long as we ensure that expressions like li[n]
and psi[n]
themselves get parsed to callable functions, we should be OK. Something like this would be OK:
sage: sefms('li[n]') curried_polylog(n) sage: sefms('li[n]')(x) polylog(n,x) sage: sefms('(li[n])(x)') polylog(n,x)
Since we cannot really handle square brackets, we'd need to do the li[n]
>curried_polylog(n)
via a string substitution, but that should be OK. The curried_polylog(n)
would just create a symbolic function that, when called with a single argument, would create the appropriate polylog.
The binary conversion sr_to_max
in maxima_lib.py
shouldn't be affected, unless they have changed their internal representation of polylogarithms.
comment:25 Changed 7 years ago by
I opened https://sourceforge.net/p/maxima/bugs/2998/ to ask about these extra ()...
comment:26 Changed 7 years ago by
 Commit changed from 82fdf0eaa092b63cc98d97b418721795ea6b5081 to 0d0649ad925808a308084b04253d7eb5c3fe2fad
Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:
0d0649a  some easy doctest fixes

comment:27 followup: ↓ 29 Changed 7 years ago by
This is bad:

build/pkgs/maxima/spkginstall
diff git a/build/pkgs/maxima/spkginstall b/build/pkgs/maxima/spkginstall index 3c80e5c..b08d0d7 100755
a b done 47 47 echo 48 48 echo "Now configuring Maxima..." 49 ./bootstrap 49 50 ./configure prefix="$SAGE_LOCAL" libdir="$SAGE_LOCAL/lib" enableecl git_found=false 50 51 check_error "Failed to configure Maxima."
Bootstrapping should ideally be done by upstream. Alternatively, it should be done in spkgsrc
, but certainly not in spkginstall
. Autotools are not a Sage prerequisite.
comment:28 in reply to: ↑ 13 ; followup: ↓ 30 Changed 7 years ago by
comment:29 in reply to: ↑ 27 Changed 7 years ago by
Replying to jdemeyer:
This is bad:
build/pkgs/maxima/spkginstall
diff git a/build/pkgs/maxima/spkginstall b/build/pkgs/maxima/spkginstall index 3c80e5c..b08d0d7 100755
a b done 47 47 echo 48 48 echo "Now configuring Maxima..." 49 ./bootstrap 49 50 ./configure prefix="$SAGE_LOCAL" libdir="$SAGE_LOCAL/lib" enableecl git_found=false 50 51 check_error "Failed to configure Maxima." Bootstrapping should ideally be done by upstream. Alternatively, it should be done in
spkgsrc
, but certainly not inspkginstall
. Autotools are not a Sage prerequisite.
I am acutely aware of this; upstream is not doing bootstrapping in the release in question. Also, note that the ticket status is "new". I'll sort this out after the bigger issues are fixed.
comment:30 in reply to: ↑ 28 Changed 7 years ago by
comment:31 Changed 7 years ago by
with sf.net back online, one finds there version 5.36.1. Not sure yet how much different it is from 5.36.0.1, which is not official...
5.36.1 has the same issue with too many ()...
comment:32 Changed 7 years ago by
 Branch changed from u/dimpase/eclupdate to u/dimpase/updateecl
 Commit changed from 0d0649ad925808a308084b04253d7eb5c3fe2fad to b669a434bdf2f91d21254ccf186bc86396dd4909
comment:33 Changed 7 years ago by
 Branch changed from u/dimpase/updateecl to u/dimpase/eclupdate
 Commit changed from b669a434bdf2f91d21254ccf186bc86396dd4909 to 0d0649ad925808a308084b04253d7eb5c3fe2fad
 Dependencies set to #18961
 Description modified (diff)
 Summary changed from upgrade Maxima and ECL to 5.36.0.1 and 15.3.7, respectively to upgrade Maxima to 5.36.1
I've split the update of ECL to a separate ticket #18961, as it is ready.
comment:34 in reply to: ↑ 24 ; followup: ↓ 35 Changed 7 years ago by
Replying to nbruin:
Replying to dimpase:
The binary conversion
sr_to_max
inmaxima_lib.py
shouldn't be affected, unless they have changed their internal representation of polylogarithms.
They say the change is a byproduct to fix another bug. Obviously it is a low priority for them to make the output backwards compatible. I wonder if we should just fully switch to maxima_lib.py
and do not try to deal with this in some other way?
comment:35 in reply to: ↑ 34 ; followup: ↓ 36 Changed 7 years ago by
Replying to dimpase:
They say the change is a byproduct to fix another bug. Obviously it is a low priority for them to make the output backwards compatible. I wonder if we should just fully switch to
maxima_lib.py
and do not try to deal with this in some other way?
Robert isn't making any statement there about priority. I would not think it's a very low priority, because the current behaviour is tantamount to writing (sin)(x)
, which is silly. I would not be surprised if in the next couple of weeks, when he has had a chance to think about a solution, he will have a fix. I'm sure it's not hard to fix. It just needs some thought to fix it properly and efficiently.
In terms of total amount of work, I would think introducing "curried" poylog and psi will be less work than eliminating any dependence on string parsing from maxima.
For calculus use, we're already moved entirely to maxima_lib. The library instance just allows two interfaces back and forth: a stringsbased one and the binary sr_to_max
and max_to_sr
one.
Moving calculus entirely to sr_to_max
is a nice idea in general, and that's a worthwhile project that should be quite doable (we're halfway there already and it didn't take much work to do that).
It would mean identifying all remaining places where calculus triggers string conversions and replace those sites with mechanisms comparable to sr_integral, sr_limit, sr_sum etc.
I think it's worthwhile if somehow we do maintain the pexpect interface to maxima as well, even if we don't need it for the calculus functionality in sage proper (and since the stringsbased interface in maxima_lib shares nearly all its code with that, we might as well keep that too). Having the pexpect interfaces in sage is a useful feature for communicating with other computer algebra systems.
comment:36 in reply to: ↑ 35 Changed 7 years ago by
Replying to nbruin:
Replying to dimpase:
They say the change is a byproduct to fix another bug. Obviously it is a low priority for them to make the output backwards compatible. I wonder if we should just fully switch to
maxima_lib.py
and do not try to deal with this in some other way?Robert isn't making any statement there about priority. I would not think it's a very low priority, because the current behaviour is tantamount to writing
(sin)(x)
, which is silly. I would not be surprised if in the next couple of weeks, when he has had a chance to think about a solution, he will have a fix. I'm sure it's not hard to fix. It just needs some thought to fix it properly and efficiently.
he replied, saying that he does not see a way to fix this, and that Sage has to put up with this for the time being.
I'd rather see this fixed im maxima, of course, but this is probably a nontrivial job for a Lisp hacker we don't have...
comment:37 Changed 7 years ago by
Quick workaround:
ecl_eval("(defprop $LI 210 rbp)") ecl_eval("(defprop $PSI 210 rbp)")
it certainly avoids the extra parentheses around li
and psi
invocations. I've reported this workaround on the maxima bugtracker too. Hopefully Robert will comment there about any possible adverse effects. Including these statements in the maxima_calculus initialization in maxima_lib.py
might do the trick (and possibly the change is accepted upstream!)
EDIT: A better and more universal change is probably:
ecl_eval("(defprop MFUNCTION 190 lbp)")
This way it applies to all "MQAPPLY" calls. That could be problematic, of course, but it doesn't seem to be, probably because 190 is still high enough. Things go wrong if you go too low:
sage: maxima_calculus("(a+b)(t)") (b+a)(t) sage: ecl_eval("(defprop MFUNCTION 1 lbp)") <ECL: 1> sage: maxima_calculus("(a+b)(t)") b+a(t)
comment:38 Changed 7 years ago by
Of course, the expression type that gets constructed for li
and psi
is more general:
sage: maxima_calculus("a[1](x)") a[1](x) sage: maxima_calculus("a[1](x)").ecl() <ECL: ((MQAPPLY SIMP) (($A SIMP ARRAY) 1) $X)>
but we already fail with that (because we carefully only convert li[
and psi[
):
sage: SR(maxima_calculus("a[1](x)")) TypeError: unable to make sense of Maxima expression 'a[1](x)' in Sage
Since square brackets are really part of Maxima's expression syntax, the proper solution would be to have a parser that can handle them. The following seems valid maxima:
sage: maxima_calculus("(sin(x)+cos(y))[tan(u)[3/(a+b)]+log(w)](t)") (cos(y)+sin(x))[log(w)+tan(u)[3/(b+a)]](t)
and parsing that with anything less than parser support for [
will be. Of course, without []
support on the side of pynac, we'd have to parse a[n]
to something like get_item(a,n)
but that would be fine (and then get_item
can have the right logic to actually resolve in relevant cases, but this would be more an extension of our symbolic expressions before it's a parsing issue for maxima)
comment:39 Changed 7 years ago by
The maxima ticket https://sourceforge.net/p/maxima/bugs/2998/ is now marked as resolved, so with any luck, the extra parentheses issue will not occur with the new maxima release.
The fix implemented is indeed ecl_eval("(defprop MFUNCTION 190 lbp)")
, so if you do not want to wait for the next maxima release, just put this command in the initialization section of maxima_lib
.
comment:40 Changed 7 years ago by
 Report Upstream changed from N/A to Not yet reported upstream; Will do shortly.
I tried upgrading to Maxima 5.37.0 (released 17 August). The formatting problem is fixed, although some of the output still looks slightly different (more/fewer parentheses, different ordering of terms in some polynomials).
However, there is a serious bug in the function eigenvectors
causing too few eigenvectors to be returned:
(%i1) M: matrix([1, 1, 0], [0, 1, 0], [0, 0, 2]); [ 1 1 0 ] [ ] (%o1) [ 0 1 0 ] [ ] [ 0 0 2 ]
Maxima 5.35.1 computes the eigenvalues and eigenvectors correctly:
(%i2) eigenvectors(M); (%o2) [[[1, 2], [2, 1]], [[[1, 0, 0]], [[0, 0, 1]]]]
In Maxima 5.37.0, the eigenvector [0, 0, 1]
is missing:
(%i2) eigenvectors(M); (%o2) [[[1, 2], [2, 1]], [[[1, 0, 0]]]]
I found this out through several doctest failures in Sage.
comment:41 Changed 7 years ago by
 Report Upstream changed from Not yet reported upstream; Will do shortly. to Reported upstream. No feedback yet.
Upstream bug report: https://sourceforge.net/p/maxima/bugs/3008/
comment:42 followup: ↓ 44 Changed 6 years ago by
It seems that version 5.38 was released a few months ago, and we are currently at 5.35.1. I think we can upgrade now since the reported bug was fixed.
comment:43 Changed 6 years ago by
 Cc jdemeyer vbraun added
 Milestone changed from sage6.8 to sage7.3
 Report Upstream changed from Reported upstream. No feedback yet. to Fixed upstream, in a later stable release.
comment:44 in reply to: ↑ 42 Changed 6 years ago by
Replying to tscrim:
It seems that version 5.38 was released a few months ago, and we are currently at 5.35.1. I think we can upgrade now since the reported bug was fixed.
Note that the bug fix is only in the development branch, not in 5.38.1. We can of course add the relevant upstream commit (3e4e107) as a patch.
comment:45 Changed 6 years ago by
Shall we then move forward then with upgrading to 5.38.1 with backporting 3e4e107 as a patch? Or should we ask the Maxima team to see how close they are to cutting a 5.38.2?
comment:46 Changed 6 years ago by
 Milestone changed from sage7.3 to sage7.4
 Summary changed from upgrade Maxima to 5.36.1 to upgrade Maxima to version >= 5.38.1
it's about time. Should I have a go at it?
comment:47 Changed 6 years ago by
Please do. We have to make sagemath 7.4 work with maxima 5.38.1 in Debian and it would help if we had a patch that we could backport.
comment:48 Changed 6 years ago by
Dima, can you rebase your branch?
comment:49 Changed 6 years ago by
Will try later today.
comment:50 Changed 6 years ago by
 Branch changed from u/dimpase/eclupdate to public/t18920
 Commit changed from 0d0649ad925808a308084b04253d7eb5c3fe2fad to 231002039aeed3f1926ec58804bd538b5ec9385d
 Dependencies #18961 deleted
comment:51 Changed 6 years ago by
 Work issues set to rebase the rest of Maxima patches
So far, only the relevant commits from the old branch are rebased. I still have to fix patches to Maxima sources  they don't apply cleanly.
comment:52 Changed 6 years ago by
We'll also want to move to maxima 5.38.1 at least.
comment:53 Changed 6 years ago by
 Commit changed from 231002039aeed3f1926ec58804bd538b5ec9385d to a4bf7166892c6dae760cd2cd1c84f5cb9675ef15
Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:
a4bf716  rebased patches, added eigenvectors patch too

comment:54 Changed 6 years ago by
 Description modified (diff)
 Milestone changed from sage7.4 to sage7.5
 Work issues changed from rebase the rest of Maxima patches to fix doctests, if any.
For info, I have been using ecl 15.3.7 for a while in sageongentoo. That part is a straight upgrade as far as I can see. I do not remember having tried a newer maxima but it usually breaks a lest a couple of doctest.