Opened 5 months ago

Closed 4 months ago

Last modified 3 months ago

#30063 closed enhancement (fixed)

Upgrade: Maxima 5.44.0

Reported by: pbruin Owned by:
Priority: major Milestone: sage-9.2
Component: packages: standard Keywords: upgrade, maxima
Cc: dimpase, fbissey, gh-timokau, saraedum, slelievre, arojas, kcrisman, nbruin, paulmasson Merged in:
Authors: Matthias Koeppe, Thierry Monteil Reviewers: Emmanuel Charpentier, Matthias Koeppe
Report Upstream: N/A Work issues:
Branch: 21e2fea (Commits) Commit:
Dependencies: #22191 Stopgaps:

Description (last modified by tmonteil)

Upstream tarball: see upstream_url in build/pkgs/maxima/checksums.ini.

Previous update: #26625 Update maxima to 5.42.2

Follow-up bug: #30389

Change History (59)

comment:1 Changed 5 months ago by mkoeppe

  • Cc dimpase added
  • Dependencies set to #22191

comment:2 Changed 5 months ago by mkoeppe

  • Branch set to u/mkoeppe/upgrade_maxima_to_5_44_0

comment:3 Changed 5 months ago by mkoeppe

  • Commit set to abb763e2ac72741ea86d0eee5b758c026fc9d1d4
  • Description modified (diff)

Patches need to be removed or updated.


Last 10 new commits:

1d074e8doctest fixes
266d8c1backport ECL PR #210
12447bcreject old makeinfo
a3e0ecaadd upstream fix from MR 215
89b006badd the patch from upstream MR 214
0b77737add upstream MR 216 (to fix cygwin fork)
8ca1c0eMerge tag '9.2.beta2' into t/22191/public/packages/ecl20
f82c716Commit 75877dd8 from upstream
324869aMerge branch 'public/packages/ecl20' of git://trac.sagemath.org/sage into t/30063/upgrade_maxima_to_5_44_0
abb763ebuild/pkgs/maxima: Update to 5.44.0

comment:4 Changed 5 months ago by mkoeppe

  • Cc fbissey gh-timokau saraedum slelievre added
  • Description modified (diff)

comment:5 Changed 5 months ago by slelievre

  • Description modified (diff)

comment:6 Changed 5 months ago by arojas

  • Cc arojas added

comment:7 Changed 5 months ago by git

  • Commit changed from abb763e2ac72741ea86d0eee5b758c026fc9d1d4 to 3db87ad1fd15fb50b6e44267cc5c37759376bba0

Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. This was a forced push. New commits:

3db87adbuild/pkgs/maxima: Update to 5.44.0

comment:8 Changed 5 months ago by mkoeppe

Removing bugfix3629.patch, which is in 5.44.0

0001-taylor2-Avoid-blowing-the-stack-when-diff-expand-isn.patch does not apply. 5.44.0 has a different (simpler) change in this code.

comment:9 Changed 5 months ago by git

  • Commit changed from 3db87ad1fd15fb50b6e44267cc5c37759376bba0 to bcf3c98839dfdfa37a9863e6f1c70f20997bb4ea

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

bcf3c98Remove old patches

comment:10 Changed 5 months ago by mkoeppe

On macOS,

[maxima-5.44.0] /bin/bash /Users/mkoeppe/s/sage/sage-rebasing/worktree-algebraic-2018-spring/local/var/tmp/sage/build/maxima-5.44.0/src/missing makeinfo --html -c TEXI2HTML=1 --split=chapter --document-lang=en --output=. --css-include=../../../doc/info/manual.css --init-file  ../../../doc/info/texi2html.init  xmaxima.texi
[maxima-5.44.0] makeinfo: invalid option -- c
[maxima-5.44.0] Try `makeinfo --help' for more information.

comment:11 Changed 5 months ago by mkoeppe

This is /usr/bin/makeinfo

$ makeinfo --version
makeinfo (GNU texinfo) 4.8

Copyright (C) 2004 Free Software Foundation, Inc.

comment:12 follow-up: Changed 5 months ago by git

  • Commit changed from bcf3c98839dfdfa37a9863e6f1c70f20997bb4ea to 07aa2f93345d2cecee75e074dc9bbcb22074129c

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

07aa2f9build/pkgs/maxima/spkg-install.in: New workaround for makeinfo trouble

comment:13 Changed 5 months ago by mkoeppe

Builds OK now on macOS. Haven't tested anything else

comment:15 in reply to: ↑ 12 Changed 5 months ago by dimpase

Replying to git:

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

07aa2f9build/pkgs/maxima/spkg-install.in: New workaround for makeinfo trouble

don't they have an option not to build docs?

comment:16 Changed 5 months ago by mkoeppe

Unfortunately they don't.

comment:17 follow-ups: Changed 5 months ago by arojas

These are the test failures I get downstream (using system maxima):

**********************************************************************
File "/usr/lib/python3.8/site-packages/sage/interfaces/maxima_abstract.py", line 225, in sage.interfaces.maxima_abstract.MaximaAbstract.example
Failed example:
    maxima.example('arrays')
Expected:
    a[n]:=n*a[n-1]
                                    a  := n a
                                     n       n - 1
    a[0]:1
    a[5]
                                          120
    a[n]:=n
    a[6]
                                           6
    a[4]
                                          24
                                         done
Got:
                                     n       n - 1
    a[0]:1
    a[5]
                                          120
    a[n]:=n
    a[6]
                                           6
    a[4]
                                          24
                                         done
    <BLANKLINE>
**********************************************************************
File "/usr/lib/python3.8/site-packages/sage/interfaces/maxima_abstract.py", line 283, in sage.interfaces.maxima_abstract.MaximaAbstract.completions
Failed example:
    sorted(maxima.completions('gc', verbose=False))
Expected:
    ['gcd', 'gcdex', 'gcfactor', 'gctime']
Got:
    ['gcd', 'gcd\\-impl', 'gcdex', 'gcfactor', 'gcfactor\\-impl', 'gctime']
**********************************************************************
File "/usr/lib/python3.8/site-packages/sage/symbolic/expression.pyx", line 10031, in sage.symbolic.expression.Expression.simplify_hypergeometric
Failed example:
    hypergeometric_M(1, 3, x).simplify_hypergeometric()
Expected:
    -2*(x - e^x + 1)/x^2
Got:
    2*e^x*gamma_incomplete_lower(2, x)/x^2
**********************************************************************
File "/usr/lib/python3.8/site-packages/sage/symbolic/integration/integral.py", line 864, in sage.symbolic.integration.integral.integrate
Failed example:
    a = integral(log(cot(x) - 1), x, 0, pi/4); a  # long time (about 6 s)
Expected:
    -1/4*pi*log(2) - 1/2*I*dilog(I + 1) + 1/2*I*dilog(-I + 1) + 1/2*I*dilog(1/2*I + 1/2) - 1/2*I*dilog(-1/2*I + 1/2)
Got:
    1/4*pi*(I*pi + log(2)) - 1/2*pi*log(2) - 1/2*I*dilog(I + 1) + 1/2*I*dilog(-I + 1) + 1/2*I*dilog(1/2*I + 1/2) - 1/2*I*dilog(-1/2*I + 1/2)
**********************************************************************
File "/usr/lib/python3.8/site-packages/sage/symbolic/integration/integral.py", line 866, in sage.symbolic.integration.integral.integrate
Failed example:
    abs(N(a - pi*log(2)/8)) < 1e-15  # long time
Expected:
    True
Got:
    False
**********************************************************************

The first one needs a readjustment of the number of removed lines in https://git.sagemath.org/sage.git/tree/src/sage/interfaces/maxima_abstract.py#n183

The ones in integration/integral.py are a known upstream issue since 5.43. The corresponding tests in maxima are disabled as known to fail, so maybe they can be tagged as known bug here.

The other two seem harmless.

comment:18 Changed 5 months ago by git

  • Commit changed from 07aa2f93345d2cecee75e074dc9bbcb22074129c to 046634d7429f9c82a47b011dd986bbb665759a13

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

046634dsage.interfaces.maxima_abstract.MaximaAbstract._command_runner: Skip all comment lines, rather than counting lines to skip

comment:19 in reply to: ↑ 17 Changed 5 months ago by mkoeppe

Replying to arojas:

The first one needs a readjustment of the number of removed lines in https://git.sagemath.org/sage.git/tree/src/sage/interfaces/maxima_abstract.py#n183

I have fixed the first one by a method that I hope to be more robust.

comment:20 in reply to: ↑ 17 Changed 5 months ago by mkoeppe

Replying to arojas:

These are the test failures I get downstream (using system maxima):

**********************************************************************
File "/usr/lib/python3.8/site-packages/sage/interfaces/maxima_abstract.py", line 283, in sage.interfaces.maxima_abstract.MaximaAbstract.completions
Failed example:
    sorted(maxima.completions('gc', verbose=False))
Expected:
    ['gcd', 'gcdex', 'gcfactor', 'gctime']
Got:
    ['gcd', 'gcd\\-impl', 'gcdex', 'gcfactor', 'gcfactor\\-impl', 'gctime']
**********************************************************************

This is now https://sourceforge.net/p/maxima/bugs/3643/

comment:21 Changed 5 months ago by git

  • Commit changed from 046634d7429f9c82a47b011dd986bbb665759a13 to d1ad8d7a9482bbbb3b7c0a6b919744e954f396cf

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

d1ad8d7sage.interfaces.maxima_abstract.MaximaAbstract.completions: Remove '-impl' functions

comment:22 in reply to: ↑ 17 ; follow-up: Changed 5 months ago by mkoeppe

  • Cc kcrisman nbruin paulmasson added

Replying to arojas:

These are the test failures I get downstream (using system maxima):

**********************************************************************
File "/usr/lib/python3.8/site-packages/sage/symbolic/expression.pyx", line 10031, in sage.symbolic.expression.Expression.simplify_hypergeometric
Failed example:
    hypergeometric_M(1, 3, x).simplify_hypergeometric()
Expected:
    -2*(x - e^x + 1)/x^2
Got:
    2*e^x*gamma_incomplete_lower(2, x)/x^2

For this one I hope we can enroll the help of some symbolics experts. A related older ticket: #16697

comment:23 in reply to: ↑ 22 Changed 5 months ago by dimpase

Replying to mkoeppe:

Replying to arojas:

These are the test failures I get downstream (using system maxima):

**********************************************************************
File "/usr/lib/python3.8/site-packages/sage/symbolic/expression.pyx", line 10031, in sage.symbolic.expression.Expression.simplify_hypergeometric
Failed example:
    hypergeometric_M(1, 3, x).simplify_hypergeometric()
Expected:
    -2*(x - e^x + 1)/x^2
Got:
    2*e^x*gamma_incomplete_lower(2, x)/x^2

For this one I hope we can enroll the help of some symbolics experts. A related older ticket: #16697

M(1,3,x) = 1F1(1,3,x) - a.k.a Kummer function, whereas lower incomplete gamma is gamma(a,x)=xa/a 1F1(a,a+1,-x), a=2, i.e. the claim is that 1F1(1,3,x)=-exp(x) 1F1(2,3,-x). So this seems to be Kummer transform from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confluent_hypergeometric_function#Kummer's_transformation

but with a wrong sign (modulo typos...)

see also https://dlmf.nist.gov/13.6#E5

Last edited 5 months ago by dimpase (previous) (diff)

comment:24 Changed 5 months ago by mkoeppe

From the maxima 5.43 change log:

  • series expansion for expintegral_si and gamma_incomplete; breaks some existing tests, see commit 47a6afd.

From the maxima 5.44 change log:

  • gamma_incomplete_lower is now returned in the noun form in many places
  • Taylor expansion for gamma_incomplete_lower(1/2,z) now works
  • gamma_incomplete_lower now respects gamma_expand

I note the following:

sage: hypergeometric_M(1, 3, 1).n()
1.43656365691809
sage: hypergeometric_M(1, 3, 1).simplify_hypergeometric()
2*e*gamma_incomplete_lower(2, 1)
sage: hypergeometric_M(1, 3, 1).simplify_hypergeometric().n()
TypeError: cannot evaluate symbolic expression numerically

comment:25 Changed 4 months ago by mkoeppe

  • Status changed from new to needs_info

comment:26 Changed 4 months ago by kcrisman

For the problem in comment:22 I recommend doing as Nils mentions in the recent sage-devel discussion around a Maxima infinite recursion error, and isolate which Maxima commands do this. I believe simplify_hypergeometric is a Maxima command wrapper, so it should be completely replicated in Maxima. By the way, in diagnosing this, a a few things to note.

sage: hypergeometric_M(1, 3, x)
hypergeometric_M(1, 3, x)
sage: maxima_calculus(hypergeometric_M(1,3,x))
kummer_m(1,3,_SAGE_VAR_x)

but

sage: B = hypergeometric_M(1, 3, x)
sage: B.generalized()
hypergeometric((1,), (3,), x)
sage: maxima_calculus(B.generalized())
hypergeometric([1],[3],_SAGE_VAR_x)

and also don't forget

sage: B.simplify_hypergeometric(algorithm='sage')
-2*(x - e^x + 1)/x^2

Unfortunately I don't have a chance to check out this update in order to diagnose the problem further. I do note that the hgfred uses maxima and not maxima_calculus, though perhaps it is imported as such earlier in the file.

comment:27 Changed 4 months ago by mkoeppe

  • Milestone changed from sage-9.2 to sage-9.3

comment:28 Changed 4 months ago by tmonteil

  • Branch changed from u/mkoeppe/upgrade_maxima_to_5_44_0 to u/tmonteil/upgrade_maxima_to_5_44_0

comment:29 Changed 4 months ago by git

  • Commit changed from d1ad8d7a9482bbbb3b7c0a6b919744e954f396cf to 21e2feaa1188735241e988836a7d21bec258c741

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

21e2fea#30063 : mark Maxima's integration regression as known bug.

comment:30 follow-ups: Changed 4 months ago by tmonteil

  • Authors set to Matthias Koeppe, Thierry Monteil
  • Milestone changed from sage-9.3 to sage-9.2
  • Priority changed from minor to major
  • Status changed from needs_info to needs_review
  • Type changed from task to enhancement

I was working on upgrading Maxima too (as i did not see that ticket), so while i am not a symbolics expert, i fixed the gamma_incomplete_lower issue: that function was called gamma_greek by Maxima before.

I also marked the intergration regression as known bug.

I think it is ready for review now.

comment:31 follow-up: Changed 4 months ago by charpent

I'm trying to test this one. make started to getgcc 9.2.0 (whereas the system's gcc is at 10.1.0).

WTF ?

comment:32 in reply to: ↑ 31 ; follow-up: Changed 4 months ago by tmonteil

Replying to charpent:

I'm trying to test this one. make started to getgcc 9.2.0 (whereas the system's gcc is at 10.1.0).

WTF ?

This is probably because #29674 has been merged. Is it not related to the current ticket.

comment:33 in reply to: ↑ 32 ; follow-up: Changed 4 months ago by charpent

Replying to tmonteil:

Replying to charpent:

I'm trying to test this one. make started to getgcc 9.2.0 (whereas the system's gcc is at 10.1.0).

WTF ?

This is probably because #29674 has been merged. Is it not related to the current ticket.

That was merged three months ago. I have rebuild and|or ipgraded my sage installation a few times since, and this never happened.

Furthermore, I tried reconfiguring with ./configure CC=gcc-9 CXX=g++-9 FC=gfortran-9 --enable-download-from-upstream-url ; configure now wants to install a bunch of system packages that were accepted before. Its answers :

configure: notice: the following SPKGs did not find equivalent system packages: cbc coxeter3 fflas_ffpack gfortran gsl iml openblas r suitesparse
checking for the package system in use... debian
configure: hint: installing the following system packages is recommended and may avoid building some of the above SPKGs from source:
configure:   $ sudo apt-get update 
  $ sudo apt-get install coinor-cbc coinor-libcbc-dev fflas-ffpack gfortran libgsl-dev libiml-dev libopenblas-dev r-base-dev r-cran-lattice libsuitesparse-dev
configure: After installation, re-run configure using:
configure:   $ ./config.status --recheck && ./config.status

Attempting a (simulated) installation tells me that all those packages are already at their latest versions... and the check fails again.

I'm afraid to be stuck...

Last edited 4 months ago by charpent (previous) (diff)

comment:34 in reply to: ↑ 33 Changed 4 months ago by charpent

Replying to charpent:

[ Snip... ]

I'm afraid to be stuck...

Re-reading my terminal I may have typed a small but devastating typo. I cleaned up and retried, and things seem to be OK for now.

Deeply sorry for the noise...

comment:35 in reply to: ↑ 30 ; follow-up: Changed 4 months ago by mkoeppe

Replying to tmonteil:

I was working on upgrading Maxima too (as i did not see that ticket), so while i am not a symbolics expert, i fixed the gamma_incomplete_lower issue: that function was called gamma_greek by Maxima before.

I also marked the intergration regression as known bug.

I think it is ready for review now.

Thanks for working on this!

Do we actually know whether this new Maxima version brings any improvements that are relevant for us -- given that there is this regression?

comment:36 in reply to: ↑ 35 Changed 4 months ago by mkoeppe

Replying to mkoeppe:

Do we actually know whether this new Maxima version brings any improvements that are relevant for us -- given that there is this regression?

OK, I see, #28538

comment:37 Changed 4 months ago by mkoeppe

Dima had a concern about a possible sign error in comment 23 above - could someone double check?

comment:38 Changed 4 months ago by slelievre

comment:39 follow-up: Changed 4 months ago by charpent

  • Status changed from needs_review to positive_review

Okay. ptestlong gives me the same (unrelated) failures as what I have already reported since 9.2.beta3 (IIRC).

Concerning comment 23 :

sage: hypergeometric_M(1, 3, x).simplify_hypergeometric()                       
-2*((x + 1)*e^(-x) - 1)*e^x/x^2
sage: hypergeometric_M(1, 3, x).simplify_hypergeometric().factor()              
-2*(x - e^x + 1)/x^2

which seems kosher :

sage: mathematica.FullSimplify(hypergeometric_M(1, 3, x)).sage().factor()       
-2*(x - e^x + 1)/x^2

==> (tentative) positive_review.

As always, cross-checks on various platforms are more than useful.

[ Only incidentally related... ] : I sternuously object to have to retain obsolete versions of the compilers in order to be able to compile without being told so. This problem, which appears only in some platforms, should be documented in the README.md ; furthermore, ./configure should :

  • suggest the installation of the relevant packages for older versions (recompiling the gcc smalah takes a geological age or two...), and
  • suggest reconfiguring with the relevant arguments.

Where should this rant be usefully posted ? I am aware of too much tickets related to system configuration and options, and am a bit lost...

comment:40 follow-up: Changed 4 months ago by slabbe

  • Status changed from positive_review to needs_work

Reviewer name is missing, I am changing to needs work before the release manager needs to do it.

comment:41 follow-up: Changed 4 months ago by mkoeppe

Also, this ticket should undergo portability testing before it should be set to "positive review".

comment:42 in reply to: ↑ 39 ; follow-up: Changed 4 months ago by mkoeppe

Replying to charpent:

./configure should :

  • suggest the installation of the relevant packages for older versions (recompiling the gcc smalah takes a geological age or two...), and
  • suggest reconfiguring with the relevant arguments.

Where should this ... be usefully posted ?

Try #29586 (Improve configure's recommendations). It would be helpful to include the messages that configure prints on your system, and to explain what is missing.

comment:43 Changed 4 months ago by mkoeppe

  • Status changed from needs_work to needs_review

comment:44 Changed 4 months ago by charpent

  • Reviewers set to Emmanuel Charpentier

Adding my name (as I should have initially...), but keeping it at needs_review.

Last edited 4 months ago by charpent (previous) (diff)

comment:45 in reply to: ↑ 41 Changed 4 months ago by charpent

Replying to mkoeppe:

Also, this ticket should undergo portability testing before it should be set to "positive review".

I agree. But trac lacks a state of tentative_positive_review, which should be useful in similar situations (i. e. code changes with (known|potential) platform issues...).

comment:46 in reply to: ↑ 40 Changed 4 months ago by charpent

Replying to slabbe:

Reviewer name is missing, I am changing to needs work before the release manager needs to do it.

Damn ! I keep forgetting this. Old age ? Incipient Alzheimer's ?

Done, anyway.

comment:47 Changed 4 months ago by mkoeppe

  • Reviewers changed from Emmanuel Charpentier to Emmanuel Charpentier, github.com/mkoeppe/sage/actions/runs/208788708, github.com/mkoeppe/sage/actions/runs/208788707

comment:48 follow-up: Changed 4 months ago by mkoeppe

All clean on debian and ubuntu, waiting for more results

comment:49 in reply to: ↑ 30 ; follow-up: Changed 4 months ago by pbruin

Replying to tmonteil:

I was working on upgrading Maxima too (as i did not see that ticket), so while i am not a symbolics expert, i fixed the gamma_incomplete_lower issue: that function was called gamma_greek by Maxima before.

Nice solution!

I also marked the intergration regression as known bug.

Would it be worth finding out when this regression was introduced in Maxima and try to add a patch to fix it?

comment:50 in reply to: ↑ 42 Changed 4 months ago by dimpase

Replying to mkoeppe:

Replying to charpent:

./configure should :

  • suggest the installation of the relevant packages for older versions (recompiling the gcc smalah takes a geological age or two...), and
  • suggest reconfiguring with the relevant arguments.

Where should this ... be usefully posted ?

Try #29586 (Improve configure's recommendations). It would be helpful to include the messages that configure prints on your system, and to explain what is missing.

I would change the default ./configure outcomes of not finding gcc, gfortran, gmp, etc to Error. (which can be overridden by specifying explicit options)

comment:51 in reply to: ↑ 49 ; follow-up: Changed 4 months ago by tmonteil

Replying to pbruin:

Replying to tmonteil:

I was working on upgrading Maxima too (as i did not see that ticket), so while i am not a symbolics expert, i fixed the gamma_incomplete_lower issue: that function was called gamma_greek by Maxima before.

Nice solution!

I also marked the intergration regression as known bug.

Would it be worth finding out when this regression was introduced in Maxima and try to add a patch to fix it?

It goes far beyond my skills, as i never wrote a single line of lisp.

The best i can do is to report the regression upstream and follow its evolution to untag the corresponding doctest once it is fixed. I am not sure this regression should prevent us to update Maxima.

comment:52 in reply to: ↑ 51 ; follow-ups: Changed 4 months ago by kcrisman

The best i can do is to report the regression upstream and follow its evolution to untag the corresponding doctest once it is fixed. I am not sure this regression should prevent us to update Maxima.

You can also open a new ticket for tracking that upstream report so we don't lose it (as opposed to only noticing the doctest change if Maxima fixes this, if anyone even tests the "known bug" doctests much). I agree that if there is significant improvement introduced, then in practice we have often upgraded on a utilitarian view of things.

comment:53 in reply to: ↑ 52 Changed 4 months ago by tmonteil

Replying to kcrisman:

The best i can do is to report the regression upstream and follow its evolution to untag the corresponding doctest once it is fixed. I am not sure this regression should prevent us to update Maxima.

You can also open a new ticket for tracking that upstream report so we don't lose it (as opposed to only noticing the doctest change if Maxima fixes this, if anyone even tests the "known bug" doctests much). I agree that if there is significant improvement introduced, then in practice we have often upgraded on a utilitarian view of things.

Follow-up for tracking this issue: #30389

Last edited 4 months ago by tmonteil (previous) (diff)

comment:54 in reply to: ↑ 52 Changed 4 months ago by charpent

Replying to kcrisman:

The best i can do is to report the regression upstream and follow its evolution to untag the corresponding doctest once it is fixed. I am not sure this regression should prevent us to update Maxima.

You can also open a new ticket for tracking that upstream report so we don't lose it (as opposed to only noticing the doctest change if Maxima fixes this, if anyone even tests the "known bug" doctests much). I agree that if there is significant improvement introduced, then in practice we have often upgraded on a utilitarian view of things.

Possibly related : #30379 and the fossil tickets mentioned therein...

comment:55 in reply to: ↑ 48 Changed 4 months ago by charpent

Replying to mkoeppe:

All clean on debian and ubuntu, waiting for more results

FWIW, worked again in upgrading to 9.2.beta9.

comment:56 Changed 4 months ago by mkoeppe

  • Reviewers changed from Emmanuel Charpentier, github.com/mkoeppe/sage/actions/runs/208788708, github.com/mkoeppe/sage/actions/runs/208788707 to Emmanuel Charpentier, Matthias Koeppe
  • Status changed from needs_review to positive_review

comment:57 Changed 4 months ago by slelievre

  • Description modified (diff)
  • Keywords upgrade maxima added
  • Summary changed from Upgrade Maxima to 5.44.0 to Upgrade: Maxima 5.44.0

comment:58 Changed 4 months ago by vbraun

  • Branch changed from u/tmonteil/upgrade_maxima_to_5_44_0 to 21e2feaa1188735241e988836a7d21bec258c741
  • Resolution set to fixed
  • Status changed from positive_review to closed

comment:59 Changed 3 months ago by tmonteil

  • Commit 21e2feaa1188735241e988836a7d21bec258c741 deleted
  • Description modified (diff)
Note: See TracTickets for help on using tickets.