Opened 23 months ago
Closed 21 months ago
#23544 closed enhancement (fixed)
Upgrade PARI/GP to git master version
Reported by:  jdemeyer  Owned by:  

Priority:  major  Milestone:  sage8.1 
Component:  packages: standard  Keywords:  
Cc:  Merged in:  
Authors:  Jeroen Demeyer  Reviewers:  François Bissey 
Report Upstream:  Fixed upstream, but not in a stable release.  Work issues:  
Branch:  6896cc7 (Commits)  Commit:  6896cc7f0e5d41822a6a4480d0f108434b02caee 
Dependencies:  #23796  Stopgaps: 
Description (last modified by )
No changes to the Sage build system or Sage library are needed, so there is full build compatibility with the stable version.
There are some doctest failures though, which need to be fixed.
Tarball: http://sage.ugent.be/www/jdemeyer/sage/pari2.101280g88fb5b3.tar.gz (copied from https://pari.math.ubordeaux.fr/pub/pari/snapshots/)
Upstream bugs found:
Change History (35)
comment:1 Changed 23 months ago by
 Branch set to u/jdemeyer/ticket/23544
comment:2 Changed 22 months ago by
 Commit set to 476bbe280a454744efb76074e3a394db13a6d112
comment:3 Changed 22 months ago by
 Description modified (diff)
comment:4 Changed 22 months ago by
 Description modified (diff)
 Summary changed from Upgrade PARI to git master version to Upgrade PARI/GP to git master version
comment:5 Changed 22 months ago by
 Description modified (diff)
comment:6 Changed 22 months ago by
 Commit changed from 476bbe280a454744efb76074e3a394db13a6d112 to 7f7dbb29258a9c7d03271f839fa7ea146dfcf8a3
Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. This was a forced push. New commits:
938fc1d  Don't use undocumented nf[7] in Simon's scripts

5e7022b  PARI private header anal.h is no longer needed

848a9cd  Upgrade PARI to git master version

14829fe  Fix doctests for PARI upgrade

7f7dbb2  Fix elliptic_exponential()

comment:7 Changed 22 months ago by
 Commit changed from 7f7dbb29258a9c7d03271f839fa7ea146dfcf8a3 to 85f51b48a14caa15b3c928aab0fd8e57374ed482
Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. This was a forced push. New commits:
a668387  Fix elliptic_exponential()

3d582ec  Don't use undocumented nf[7] in Simon's scripts

108ff2e  Use "abs tol" for clarity

e34d791  PARI private header anal.h is no longer needed

3b3886d  Upgrade PARI to git master version

85f51b4  Fix doctests for PARI upgrade

comment:8 Changed 22 months ago by
 Dependencies changed from #23543 to #23796
comment:9 Changed 22 months ago by
 Description modified (diff)
comment:10 Changed 22 months ago by
Shouldn't the tarball be pari2.10.0xxx rather than 2.9.0?
comment:11 Changed 22 months ago by
 Status changed from new to needs_review
comment:12 followups: ↓ 13 ↓ 14 Changed 21 months ago by
 Status changed from needs_review to needs_work
OK, can you explain to me how sage will know to upgrade from 2.9.3 to 2.9.0xxxxxx? Am I missing something there about the build system.
Even if the version number doesn't matter so much, because sage builds and rebuilds stuff on version change, whatever they are, my sanity says the version number should be higher. Even upstream pari name their snapshot pari2.10 https://pari.math.ubordeaux.fr/pub/pari/snapshots/ and of course all the pari2.9 releases have the same soname but this one will have different one.
Please change the version name.
comment:13 in reply to: ↑ 12 ; followup: ↓ 17 Changed 21 months ago by
Replying to fbissey:
OK, can you explain to me how sage will know to upgrade from 2.9.3 to 2.9.0xxxxxx?
It just does. Sage doesn't have a concept of lower/higher version numbers, only of changed version numbers.
Even upstream pari name their snapshot pari2.10 https://pari.math.ubordeaux.fr/pub/pari/snapshots/
I wonder how they do that. I am doing as documented to create a PARI tarball (make distrib
) and the version number pari2.9.01234gd1d0c49
is what comes out of the official upstream script.
So I would argue that the bug is upstream then.
comment:14 in reply to: ↑ 12 Changed 21 months ago by
Replying to fbissey:
Please change the version name.
OK, I will take a copy of the snapshot in https://pari.math.ubordeaux.fr/pub/pari/snapshots/ then
comment:15 Changed 21 months ago by
 Description modified (diff)
comment:16 Changed 21 months ago by
 Commit changed from 85f51b48a14caa15b3c928aab0fd8e57374ed482 to b15871276fd0444d115ad2c73bb19c60c741a420
comment:17 in reply to: ↑ 13 Changed 21 months ago by
Replying to jdemeyer:
Replying to fbissey:
OK, can you explain to me how sage will know to upgrade from 2.9.3 to 2.9.0xxxxxx?
It just does. Sage doesn't have a concept of lower/higher version numbers, only of changed version numbers.
Even upstream pari name their snapshot pari2.10 https://pari.math.ubordeaux.fr/pub/pari/snapshots/
I wonder how they do that. I am doing as documented to create a PARI tarball (
make distrib
) and the version numberpari2.9.01234gd1d0c49
is what comes out of the official upstream script.So I would argue that the bug is upstream then.
OK, so that's why there is not an spkgsrc
either. Yes, sounds like a bug upstream then. Now that you have changed to an "official" upstream snapshot I will have to revise my own ebuild to be on the same level.
comment:18 Changed 21 months ago by
 Description modified (diff)
 Report Upstream changed from N/A to Reported upstream. No feedback yet.
comment:19 Changed 21 months ago by
Ok so upstream has a nice explanation for the 2.9.0/2.10 thing. Do we need to wait for upstream answer to the other bug?
comment:20 Changed 21 months ago by
 Description modified (diff)
 Report Upstream changed from Reported upstream. No feedback yet. to Fixed upstream, but not in a stable release.
comment:21 Changed 21 months ago by
 Description modified (diff)
comment:22 Changed 21 months ago by
 Commit changed from b15871276fd0444d115ad2c73bb19c60c741a420 to ee09527a201962e2caa245e7e7ee0cb12b5f624a
comment:23 Changed 21 months ago by
 Status changed from needs_work to needs_review
comment:24 Changed 21 months ago by
 Reviewers set to François Bissey
 Status changed from needs_review to positive_review
Let's move on with this.
comment:25 Changed 21 months ago by
 Status changed from positive_review to needs_work
sage t long warnlong 69.1 src/sage/tests/books/judsonabstractalgebra/fieldssage.py ********************************************************************** File "src/sage/tests/books/judsonabstractalgebra/fieldssage.py", line 276, in sage.tests.books.judsonabstractalgebra.fieldssage Failed example: r1.as_number_field_element() Expected: (Number Field in a with defining polynomial y^4 + y^2  1, a, Ring morphism: From: Number Field in a with defining polynomial y^4 + y^2  1 To: Algebraic Real Field Defn: a > 0.7861513777574233?) Got: (Number Field in a with defining polynomial y^4  y^2  1, a^3  a, Ring morphism: From: Number Field in a with defining polynomial y^4  y^2  1 To: Algebraic Real Field Defn: a > 1.272019649514069?) ********************************************************************** 1 item had failures: 1 of 69 in sage.tests.books.judsonabstractalgebra.fieldssage [68 tests, 1 failure, 1.92 s]  sage t long warnlong 69.1 src/sage/tests/books/judsonabstractalgebra/fieldssage.py # 1 doctest failed  Total time for all tests: 2.3 seconds
comment:26 Changed 21 months ago by
That is a new doctest which didn't exist when this ticket was created.
comment:27 Changed 21 months ago by
 Commit changed from ee09527a201962e2caa245e7e7ee0cb12b5f624a to 6896cc7f0e5d41822a6a4480d0f108434b02caee
comment:28 Changed 21 months ago by
 Status changed from needs_work to positive_review
Obvious fix changing the doctest output.
comment:29 Changed 21 months ago by
Thanks for the notice on the Judson book fix. I'll tidy it up when the book is updated, but for now the fix is fine.
comment:30 Changed 21 months ago by
 Status changed from positive_review to needs_work
I'm getting random failures here
sage t long warnlong 66.2 src/sage/schemes/elliptic_curves/sha_tate.py ********************************************************************** File "src/sage/schemes/elliptic_curves/sha_tate.py", line 915, in sage.schemes.elliptic_curves.sha_tate.Sha.two_selmer_bound Failed example: sh.two_selmer_bound() Exception raised: Traceback (most recent call last): File "/mnt/disk/home/release/Sage/local/lib/python2.7/sitepackages/sage/doctest/forker.py", line 515, in _run self.compile_and_execute(example, compiler, test.globs) File "/mnt/disk/home/release/Sage/local/lib/python2.7/sitepackages/sage/doctest/forker.py", line 885, in compile_and_execute exec(compiled, globs) File "<doctest sage.schemes.elliptic_curves.sha_tate.Sha.two_selmer_bound[1]>", line 1, in <module> sh.two_selmer_bound() File "/mnt/disk/home/release/Sage/local/lib/python2.7/sitepackages/sage/schemes/elliptic_curves/sha_tate.py", line 934, in two_selmer_bound r = E.rank() File "/mnt/disk/home/release/Sage/local/lib/python2.7/sitepackages/sage/schemes/elliptic_curves/ell_rational_field.py", line 2121, in rank raise RuntimeError('Rank not provably correct.') RuntimeError: Rank not provably correct. ********************************************************************** 1 item had failures: 1 of 10 in sage.schemes.elliptic_curves.sha_tate.Sha.two_selmer_bound [155 tests, 1 failure, 69.61 s]
comment:31 Changed 21 months ago by
comment:32 Changed 21 months ago by
Well the failure is random so its hard to be 100% sure, but I saw it twice with this ticket and never without.
comment:33 Changed 21 months ago by
In any case, it is plausible that it's because of this ticket since PARI/GP is used in that computation.
comment:34 Changed 21 months ago by
 Status changed from needs_work to positive_review
I know how to reproduce #23962 and it is unrelated to PARI/GP.
comment:35 Changed 21 months ago by
 Branch changed from u/jdemeyer/ticket/23544 to 6896cc7f0e5d41822a6a4480d0f108434b02caee
 Resolution set to fixed
 Status changed from positive_review to closed
Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. This was a forced push. New commits:
Upgrade PARI to git master version
Fix doctests for PARI upgrade