METATICKET - missing spkg-check files / OpenSolaris & Solaris 10 test results.

[drkirkby]

The purposes of this ticket are to

• Identify what standard packages have an spkg-check file present. At the time the ticket was opened, only 19 packages had spkg-check files out of 98 packages. (Some don't need them, such as where the package just copies a database)
• Document whether the package passes tests when Sage is built with SAGE_CHECK="yes" on OpenSolaris x64. (Currently, neither Maxima or R build on OpenSolaris, and the resulting build is very unstable - segfaulting just trying to run it).
• Document whether the package passes tests when Sage is built with SAGE_CHECK="yes" on Solaris 10 on SPARC, compiled as 32-bit.
• Document whether the package passes tests when Sage is built with SAGE_CHECK="yes" on Solaris 10 on SPARC, compiled as 64-bit. (Currently, the 64-bit build of Sage needs various patches, and is rather unstable)
• Add any brief notes - giving a reference to a ticket number if possible.

The aim of this ticket is not to give details about build issues for the packages. The aim is to show what packages have spkg-check files, and collect data on what the results from the tests are.

Package	spkg-check present	OpenSolaris x64	32-bit SPARC	64-bit SPARC	Notes
atlas	Yes	-
blas	No	-
boehm_gc	Yes	Pass	Pass	Pass
boost	No	-
cddlib	Yes	Pass	Pass	Pass
cephes	No	-
cliquer	No, #9767	-
conway_polynomials	No	-
cvxopt	No	-
cython	No	-
docutils	No	-
ecl	No	-
eclib	Yes	Pass	Pass	Pass
ecm	Yes	Pass
elliptic_curves	No	-
examples	No	-
extcode	No	-
f2c	Yes	Pass	Pass	Pass
flint	Yes	Pass
flintqs	No	-
fortran	No	-
freetype	No	-
gap	No	-
gd	No	-
gdmodule	No	-
genus2reduction	No	-
gfan	No	-
ghmm	-
glpk	Yes	Pass	Pass	Pass
givaro	Yes	Does not run reliably	Does not run reliably	Does not run reliably	#9352
gnutls	No, see #9308	-			See also
graphs	No	-
gsl	Yes, but broken #9531	Fail	Fail	Fail	#9533 updates GSL and allows all tests to pass
iconv	Yes
iml	No	-
ipython	-
jinja	No	-
jinja2	No	-
lapack	No	-
lcalc	No	-
libfplll	Yes	-
libgcrypt	Yes	Pass
libgpg_error	No	-
libm4ri	#9475	-
libpng	No	-
linbox	No, see #9613	-
matplotlib	No	-
maxima	No	-			Does not build OpenSolaris
mercurial	No	-
moin	No	-
mpfi	No	-
mpfr	Yes	Pass
mpir	Yes
mpmath	No	-
networkx	No	-
ntl	Yes	Pass
numpy	No	-			#8086
opencdk	No	-
palp	No	-
pari	No, but one attached to #9343	-
pexpect	No	-
pil	No	-
polybori	No	-
polytopes_db	No	-
pycrypto	No, but #9338 adds one	Pass
pygments	No	-
pynac	No	-
python	Yes	Fail #9299	Fail #9297
python_gnutls	No	-
r	Yes	-			Does not build on OpenSolaris 64-bit (only 32-bit)
ratpoints	No, #9311	-
readline	No	-
rubiks	No	-
sage	No	-
sage_scripts	No	-
sagenb	No	-
sagetex	Yes	-			see #9351
scipy	Yes	-
scipy_sandbox	No	-
scons	No	-
setuptools	No	-
singular	No	-			#17488
sphinx	No	-
sqlalchemy	Yes, but totally useless	-			Needs nose to work
sqlite	No	-
symmetrica	No	-
sympow	No	-
sympy	No	-
tachyon	No	-
termcap	No	-
twisted	No	-
weave	No	-
zlib	No	-
zn_poly	Yes	-
zodb3	No	-

[malb]

NB: It seems to me this ticket would fit better on the wiki since it is essentially a table.

[drkirkby]

Replying to malb:

NB: It seems to me this ticket would fit better on the wiki since it is essentially a table.

Having it on a ticket seems quite common for this sort of thing. William calls it a 'metaticket'.If it on the Wiki, one can't see when something has been fixed.

Dave

[cremona]

pari itself has a "make test-all" so there is no reason why we should not have a spkg-test in the pari spkg.

[drkirkby]

That's now #9281.

[leif]

I think we should separate the presence of spkg-check from testsuite results, i.e. create a single platform-independent ticket that lists spkg improvement progress.

In addition, some packages might do self-tests during build unconditionally, others do not even have a check or test Make target or some equivalent. This should be recorded, too.

---

I strongly suggest extending sage-spkg s.t. Sage build failure on testsuite errors gets optional, and an option to continue with installation until all packages have been processed, then reporting in summary which packages were tested and which had failures, similar to the doctesting.

More complicated, but nice, would be to separate testsuite logs from install logs. (spkg/installed/PKG_NAME currently at least shows when a self-test was successfully performed, but if it failed, the file is of course removed, since this is considered a build/installation error.)

[leif]

Replying to leif:

(spkg/installed/PKG_NAME currently at least shows when a self-test was successfully performed, but if it failed, the file is of course removed, since this is considered a build/installation error.)

Ooops, due to a bug in sage-spkg, not even this information is kept. (It is echoed into $BASEDIR/$PKG_NAME, which is deleted later unless one does e.g. sage -i -s ....)

[drkirkby]

Replying to leif:

I think we should separate the presence of spkg-check from testsuite results, i.e. create a single platform-independent ticket that lists spkg improvement progress.

Feel free. I would not argue with that. Either copy my list, or generate it yourself - all I did was list the packages in $SAGE_ROOT/spkg/standard and use an awk script to generate the table. I guess if you were clever, you could get the script to automatically put "Yes" or "No", depending on whether there was an spkg-check file present! I just did that bit manually.

I just created this ticket, as a way to keep trac of the OpenSolaris issues. However, in order to have any sensible idea of progress on OpenSolaris, I needed to have a record of what packages had no self-checks.

In addition, some packages might do self-tests during build unconditionally, others do not even have a check or test Make target or some equivalent. This should be recorded, too.

I seriously think we should consider running the self-tests unconditionally on packages where this takes very little time. Some packages take less than 10 seconds to run the self-tests. I think any package where the self-test take less than 30 or perhaps 60 s on sage.math, should have the self-tests run unconditionally. I posted this as a suggestion on sage-devel, but it got no response - there does not seem to be a huge appetite for testing Sage. I think there is less than a dozen people who really seem to put much effort into improving the testing of Sage.

I strongly suggest extending sage-spkg s.t. Sage build failure on testsuite errors gets optional, and an option to continue with installation until all packages have been processed, then reporting in summary which packages were tested and which had failures, similar to the doctesting.

Yes, that sounds logical. If you know something builds, you can run make -k I guess, and continue past errors when testing.

More complicated, but nice, would be to separate testsuite logs from install logs.

I would have thought that easier than producing a summary myself. I don't believe that can be rocket science.

[leif]

Replying to drkirkby:

Replying to leif:

In addition, some packages might do self-tests during build unconditionally, others do not even have a check or test Make target or some equivalent. This should be recorded, too.

I meant tests unconditionally performed by upstream (i.e. implicitly, without "make check" or alike).

I strongly suggest extending sage-spkg s.t. Sage build failure on testsuite errors gets optional, and an option to continue with installation until all packages have been processed, then reporting in summary which packages were tested and which had failures, similar to the doctesting.

Yes, that sounds logical. If you know something builds, you can run make -k I guess, and continue past errors when testing.

;-) sage-spkg currently treats testsuite failures as build errors, so make -k would not get (much) further if other packages depend on the "failed" ones; rerunning make just deletes their previous builds, again unpacks these packages and starts rebuilding them from scratch(!) - again "failing", unless one manually touches spkg/installed/$PKG_NAME, which sage-spkg just has deleted...

More complicated, but nice, would be to separate testsuite logs from install logs.

I would have thought that easier than producing a summary myself. I don't believe that can be rocket science.

It's not rocket science (if you consider that complicated), but Sage's current build process is rather unsuited for such. Though one could of course post-process the spkg install logs, where also testsuite output ends up.

In contrast, "ignoring" testsuite failures (even if SAGE_CHECK=yes) and printing a summary report is almost trivial, the biggest "problem" being choosing new appropriate environment variable names or extending the "range" of existing ones with additional values (like SAGE_CHECK_KEEP_GOING=yes vs. SAGE_CHECK=keepgoing; SAGE_CHECK=ignore e.g. would be rather ambiguous, and we unfortunately have to keep some backwards compatibility).

[drkirkby]

Replying to leif:

In contrast, "ignoring" testsuite failures (even if SAGE_CHECK=yes) and printing a summary report is almost trivial, the biggest "problem" being choosing new appropriate environment variable names or extending the "range" of existing ones with additional values (like SAGE_CHECK_KEEP_GOING=yes vs. SAGE_CHECK=keepgoing; SAGE_CHECK=ignore e.g. would be rather ambiguous, and we unfortunately have to keep some backwards compatibility).

If it's trivial, then go for it - make a patch. Personally I think

• SAGE_CHECK=yes (Same behavior as now, but issued a depreciated warning.)
• SAGE_CHECK=abort_on_failure
• SAGE_CHECK=ignore_failures

[leif]

Replying to drkirkby:

If it's trivial, then go for it - make a patch.

The biggest problem more or less unpredictable (and embarrassing) interference with other tickets... ;-)

But I'll do.

Personally I think:

• SAGE_CHECK=yes (Same behavior as now, but issued a depreciated warning.)
• SAGE_CHECK=abort_on_failure
• SAGE_CHECK=ignore_failures

I'd suggest:

• SAGE_CHECK=yes - yes, deprecation warning, equivalent to abort_on_failure I think
• SAGE_CHECK=abort_on_failure - immediate build error
• SAGE_CHECK=keep_going - treat them as (build) errors, but try finishing the build first
• SAGE_CHECK=ignore_failures - really ignore, just give warnings, report build success
• SAGE_CHECK=no - do not run testsuites at all (same as empty or unset?)

[drkirkby]

Replying to leif:

I think we should separate the presence of spkg-check from testsuite results, i.e. create a single platform-independent ticket that lists spkg improvement progress.

I thought about this some more. I can't see what is wrong with using this ticket to have a simple yes/no whether the package has a spkg-check file. If not, just provide a trac number to where that particular spkg-check file is being discussed. For gsl for instance, we have

"Yes, but broken #9531"

So people interested know that more details of the issue can be found at #9531.

If you feel the need to have longer comments, or more columns devoted to the status of spkg-check then another ticket would be better.

When you look at the spkg-install and spkg-check it is worrying how many simple ignore errors. Sometimes they get reported, but don't exit with 1. Other times they are just ignored.

Dave

[leif]

Replying to drkirkby:

Replying to leif:

I think we should separate the presence of spkg-check from testsuite results, i.e. create a single platform-independent ticket that lists spkg improvement progress.

I thought about this some more. I can't see what is wrong with using this ticket to have a simple yes/no whether the package has a spkg-check file.

No, you misunderstood me. There's nothing wrong with your ticket, I just thought we should in addition collect spkg information, e.g. on another ticket. I haven't opened a new one yet, though what you collected so far is already worth stealing.

When you look at the spkg-install and spkg-check it is worrying how many simple ignore errors. Sometimes they get reported, but don't exit with 1. Other times they are just ignored.

If it was only the spkgs' scripts... ;-)

-Leif

[mkoeppe]

Should be closed as outdated.

[chapoton]

ok, agreed.