Opened 11 years ago
Last modified 11 years ago
#9808 closed task
Upgrade numpy to 1.4.1 and scipy to 0.8 — at Version 46
Reported by: | maldun | Owned by: | maldun |
---|---|---|---|
Priority: | major | Milestone: | sage-4.6.1 |
Component: | packages: standard | Keywords: | numpy, scipy |
Cc: | Merged in: | ||
Authors: | Stefan Reiterer | Reviewers: | |
Report Upstream: | Fixed upstream, but not in a stable release. | Work issues: | |
Branch: | Commit: | ||
Dependencies: | Stopgaps: |
Description (last modified by )
Since I really, really need them for my work, I will try to manage it to upgrade the scipy and numpy packages to the latest versions
The packages can be found found under:
http://code.google.com/p/spkg-upload/downloads/detail?name=numpy-1.4.1.spkg http://code.google.com/p/spkg-upload/downloads/detail?name=scipy-0.8.spkg
Files are found with direct links:
http://spkg-upload.googlecode.com/files/numpy-1.4.1.spkg http://spkg-upload.googlecode.com/files/scipy-0.8.spkg
Important notes: after installing numpy, one needs to execute sage -ba, or else one get's runtime warnings.
You also need networkx-1.2. (the other networkx is just a small hack for testing, because 1.2. didn't build correctly on my old sage versions, but this is obsolete now, since networkx-1.2 is merged into sage 4.3.alpha1)
trac_9808_numpy_doctest_change.patch in the attachment has to be applied, in order to get all doctests running because some of the output has changed.
Change History (50)
comment:1 Changed 11 years ago by
- Status changed from new to needs_work
comment:2 Changed 11 years ago by
- Summary changed from Upgrade numpy to 1.5b and scipy to 0.8 to Upgrade numpy to 1.5.0rc1 and scipy to 0.8
numpy 1.5.0rc1: http://www.megaupload.com/?d=KK31RSZV
comment:3 follow-up: ↓ 4 Changed 11 years ago by
I don't think that we should upgrade to 1.5.0rc1 -- we should do 1.4.1 for now and wait until 1.5 is released.
comment:4 in reply to: ↑ 3 ; follow-up: ↓ 16 Changed 11 years ago by
Replying to mhansen:
I don't think that we should upgrade to 1.5.0rc1 -- we should do 1.4.1 for now and wait until 1.5 is released.
That has to be double checked but maldun says he needs features in 1.5. It may be that the features he wants are 1.4.x and he doesn't know. Do we know roughly when 1.5 will be released? They are at 1.5rc1 9 days after beta2 so it could very well be upon us in a very short time.
comment:5 Changed 11 years ago by
The warnings go away after rebuilding the source. And the doctests only throw warnings but there don't seem to be errors, and the output is correct
@mhansen, fbissey I think numpy has the same issues since version 1.4. and I'm quite sure that resolving it in 1.5.0rc1 would, solve the problem with 1.4.1. too. (and perhaps also with 1.5. later) So I suggest the following procedure: I solve the issues with the latest. Dobule check if 1.4.1 also works, and we decide then which of the versions we keep, or for example keep 1.4.1 in standard and 1.5.0rc1 as experimental
comment:6 follow-up: ↓ 7 Changed 11 years ago by
If 1.5.0rc1 is merged, #7166 can be closed. I don't know about 1.4.1, but in any case that is not a critical bug.
Some time back I made a Solaris-specific change to Numpy, as I wanted to get it reviewed with the least hassle - that generally means making it Solaris specific, as reviewers are easier to please if it only effects a rarer platform.
But I think the change should be implemented on OS X too. Currently there's a really nasty hack on OS X to build Numpy, that involves a script called fake_gcc
, copying that to $SAGE/LOCAL/bin/gcc
, then using the fake gcc to build Numpy. Finally this fake gcc file gets deleted.
The far neater option is the way I did it on Solaris. I suggest the changes I made for Solaris are implemented whenever SAGE64
is set to "yes", irrespective of whatever platform it may be. Then all this fake gcc rubbish can be removed.
If you want, I can create a patch.
comment:7 in reply to: ↑ 6 Changed 11 years ago by
Replying to drkirkby:
If you want, I can create a patch.
would be nice! But first I have to sort some things out, I hope it will get ready soon...
comment:8 follow-up: ↓ 9 Changed 11 years ago by
Looking at all that stuff in the spkg and comparing to Gentoo. Not very pretty. Do we really still need to use sage_fortran? On most platform we now use a native fortran compiler rather than a sage shipped one - I don't know if we still do that for OS X. In the patch to gnu.py there is:
+ # Note that sse flags and so on lead to gfortran code that segfaults, so disable arch flags + return opt +
An extract of the Gentoo set up:
export NUMPY_FCONFIG="config_fc --noopt --noarch"
Actually here is the full set up that you might find interesting:
# See progress in http://projects.scipy.org/scipy/numpy/ticket/573 # with the subtle difference that we don't want to break Darwin where # -shared is not a valid linker argument if [[ ${CHOST} != *-darwin* ]] ; then append-ldflags -shared fi # only one fortran to link with: # linking with cblas and lapack library will force # autodetecting and linking to all available fortran compilers use lapack || return [[ -z ${FC} ]] && FC=$(tc-getFC) # when fortran flags are set, pic is removed. FFLAGS="${FFLAGS} -fPIC" export NUMPY_FCONFIG="config_fc --noopt --noarch"
The other patches we have are relatively minor, a fix to the f2py man page, a patch for freebsd - that may be usefull, a patch for interix(!). I cannot comment on the cygwin patches but they look very small. We are are a bit more anal with site.cfg, I don't think it is useful in the context of sage - we just have more complex possible combinations of blas/lapack.
The NUMPY_FCONFIG is passed to distutils as an argument of
python setup.py install
i.e. in the end what we do boils down to "python setup.py install ${NUMPY_FCONFIG}".
Can you point me to your solaris fix Dave? I'd like to see if I can tidy all that up in something that requires less patching and is more based on FLAGS settings.
comment:9 in reply to: ↑ 8 Changed 11 years ago by
Replying to fbissey:
Looking at all that stuff in the spkg and comparing to Gentoo. Not very pretty.
What a surprise.
Do we really still need to use sage_fortran? On most platform we now use a native fortran compiler rather than a sage shipped one - I don't know if we still do that for OS X.
I've never understood the need for this SAGE_FORTRAN
. I've tried arguing for it to be removed and use FC
instead, but I had no luck.
A Fortran compiler is still shipped on OS X, but I don't see why the variable FC
can't be made to point to that, rather than have the variable SAGE_FORTRAN
.
Can you point me to your solaris fix Dave? I'd like to see if I can tidy all that up in something that requires less patching and is more based on FLAGS settings.
On Solaris, and some OS X versions, if you want a 64-bit build, you must add the compiler flag -m64
with gcc. Usually, putting that in CFLAGS
is enough. However, for Numpy that does not work.
Someone came up with a fix for this which was implemented only on OS X, that involved creating a wrapper script called gcc_fake
which basically calls gcc with the -m64
option. You can see the script yourself in the top level directory.
Since they had done this only on OS X, it did not work on Solaris. So I came up with a solution for Solaris, but I avoided the wrapper script. Instead I set the variable to CC=gcc -m64
I'm attaching a patch, which basically uses the Solaris on any system, including OS X. I think this is the sensible way to do it, not have a wrapper script.
I've not tested the attached patch - not even on Solaris!! But I think you can see what I am trying to do. I was going to try to explain it in words, but a bit of code, even if untested, should be more sensible.
Changed 11 years ago by
An untested patch, which makes Numpy build the same was on OS X as it does on Solaris or other platforms where SAGE64=yes. It removes the stupid wrapper script.
comment:10 follow-up: ↓ 11 Changed 11 years ago by
Ok - so we still use g95 on some targets. So we need to keep some patches just for these - bother.
comment:11 in reply to: ↑ 10 ; follow-up: ↓ 12 Changed 11 years ago by
Replying to fbissey:
Ok - so we still use g95 on some targets. So we need to keep some patches just for these - bother.
I don't believe g95 is used anywhere. There are g95 binaries in the Fortran package in Sage, but William said they can be removed. There is a gfortran binary. So as far as I'm aware, all g95 stuff can be removed, but SAGE_FORTRAN
can't be removed.
Dave
comment:12 in reply to: ↑ 11 ; follow-up: ↓ 14 Changed 11 years ago by
Replying to drkirkby:
Replying to fbissey:
Ok - so we still use g95 on some targets. So we need to keep some patches just for these - bother.
I don't believe g95 is used anywhere. There are g95 binaries in the Fortran package in Sage, but William said they can be removed. There is a gfortran binary. So as far as I'm aware, all g95 stuff can be removed, but
SAGE_FORTRAN
can't be removed.
That's good! That means we probably can give the shove to the gnu.py and init.py patches. I wouldn't be sorry to see the back of these.
There is a comment in SPKG.txt:
Special Update/Build Instructions: * The file $SAGE_ROOT/devel/sage/sage/ext/numpy.pxi comes from this file and must be updated if/when the file src/numpy/doc/cython/numpy.pxi is updated.
I cannot find the file in question in that location. There is however a numpy.pxi under src/numpy/random/mtrand but I am not sure that's the file in question. Furthermore I don't appear to have a numpy.pxi in $SAGE_ROOT/devel/sage/sage/ext/numpy.pxi . Does anyone know if these instructions are obsolete?
comment:13 follow-up: ↓ 19 Changed 11 years ago by
FYI: Numpy 1.5 has been officially released now.
comment:14 in reply to: ↑ 12 ; follow-up: ↓ 15 Changed 11 years ago by
Replying to fbissey:
Replying to drkirkby:
Replying to fbissey:
Ok - so we still use g95 on some targets. So we need to keep some patches just for these - bother.
I don't believe g95 is used anywhere. There are g95 binaries in the Fortran package in Sage, but William said they can be removed. There is a gfortran binary. So as far as I'm aware, all g95 stuff can be removed, but
SAGE_FORTRAN
can't be removed.That's good! That means we probably can give the shove to the gnu.py and init.py patches. I wouldn't be sorry to see the back of these.
There is a comment in SPKG.txt:
Special Update/Build Instructions: * The file $SAGE_ROOT/devel/sage/sage/ext/numpy.pxi comes from this file and must be updated if/when the file src/numpy/doc/cython/numpy.pxi is updated.I cannot find the file in question in that location. There is however a numpy.pxi under src/numpy/random/mtrand but I am not sure that's the file in question. Furthermore I don't appear to have a numpy.pxi in $SAGE_ROOT/devel/sage/sage/ext/numpy.pxi . Does anyone know if these instructions are obsolete?
I think I was the one that added those instructions, and I'm pretty sure they're obsolete instructions now. I believe we took care of merging the differences between the two numpy.pxi/pxd files a while ago.
comment:15 in reply to: ↑ 14 Changed 11 years ago by
Replying to jason:
I think I was the one that added those instructions, and I'm pretty sure they're obsolete instructions now. I believe we took care of merging the differences between the two numpy.pxi/pxd files a while ago.
Thank you for the confirmation. I have done some cleaning to numpy's spkg-install and it seems to work as intended on my machine. I guess we'll update to 1.5 and give it a spin.
comment:16 in reply to: ↑ 4 ; follow-ups: ↓ 17 ↓ 18 Changed 11 years ago by
Replying to fbissey:
Replying to mhansen:
I don't think that we should upgrade to 1.5.0rc1 -- we should do 1.4.1 for now and wait until 1.5 is released.
That has to be double checked but maldun says he needs features in 1.5. It may be that the features he wants are 1.4.x and he doesn't know. Do we know roughly when 1.5 will be released? They are at 1.5rc1 9 days after beta2 so it could very well be upon us in a very short time.
In general though, we should not be upgrading to pre-release versions just because one person needs a feature that's only available in a pre-release. Everyone should not have to suffer the extra risks a pre-release gives unless there are compelling arguments for it.
I realise in this case 1.5 has since been released, so it's immaterial now.
Dave
comment:17 in reply to: ↑ 16 Changed 11 years ago by
Replying to drkirkby:
In general though, we should not be upgrading to pre-release versions just because one person needs a feature that's only available in a pre-release. Everyone should not have to suffer the extra risks a pre-release gives unless there are compelling arguments for it.
+1
comment:18 in reply to: ↑ 16 Changed 11 years ago by
Replying to drkirkby:
In general though, we should not be upgrading to pre-release versions just because one person needs a feature that's only available in a pre-release. Everyone should not have to suffer the extra risks a pre-release gives unless there are compelling arguments for it.
I realise in this case 1.5 has since been released, so it's immaterial now.
Yes, I didn't think it would be worth working on that particular version if it wasn't for the real proximity of the release (curses pari svn upgrade). I would probably have put pressure for 1.4.1 otherwise (very keen to see numpy upgraded).
comment:19 in reply to: ↑ 13 Changed 11 years ago by
Replying to jason:
FYI: Numpy 1.5 has been officially released now.
So I was right =) Til I'm done with 1.5.0rc1 1.5 is out...
So changed so far:
The following doctest had to be rewritten:
File "/home/maldun/sage/sage-4.5.2/devel/sage/doc/en/faq/faq-usage.rst", line 341: sage: stats.ttest_ind(list([1,2,3,4,5]),list([2,3,4,5,.6])) Expected: doctest...DeprecationWarning... (0.076752955645333687, 0.94070490247380478) Got: (0.076752955645333687, 0.94070490247380478)
That was easy =)
The next prob was:
File "/home/maldun/sage/sage-4.5.2/devel/sage/sage/graphs/graph.py", line 615: sage: Graph(A) Exception raised: Traceback (most recent call last): File "/home/maldun/sage/sage-4.5.2/local/bin/ncadoctest.py", line 1231, in run_one_test self.run_one_example(test, example, filename, compileflags) File "/home/maldun/sage/sage-4.5.2/local/bin/sagedoctest.py", line 38, in run_one_example OrigDocTestRunner.run_one_example(self, test, example, filename, compileflags) File "/home/maldun/sage/sage-4.5.2/local/bin/ncadoctest.py", line 1172, in run_one_example compileflags, 1) in test.globs File "<doctest __main__.example_1[22]>", line 1, in <module> Graph(A)###line 615: sage: Graph(A) File "/home/maldun/sage/sage-4.5.2/local/lib/python/site-packages/sage/graphs/graph.py", line 846, in __init__ data = networkx.MultiGraph(data) File "/home/maldun/sage/sage-4.5.2/local/lib/python2.6/networkx/classes/graph.py", line 220, in __init__ convert.from_whatever(data,create_using=self) File "/home/maldun/sage/sage-4.5.2/local/lib/python2.6/networkx/convert.py", line 157, in from_whatever if isinstance(thing,numpy.core.defmatrix.matrix) or \ AttributeError: 'module' object has no attribute 'defmatrix'
that was also easy. defmatrix just changed from numpy.core to numpy.matrix to numpy.matrixlib Only changed that line in /local/lib/python2.6/networkx/classes/graph.py
Here comes now a trickier one:
sage -t -valgrind "devel/sage/sage/rings/polynomial/polynomial_element.pyx" Total time for all tests: 716.4 seconds maldun@zauberbuch:~/sage/sage-4.5.2$ sage -t -valgrind "devel/sage/sage/rings/polynomial/real_roots.pyx > " ERROR: File ./devel/sage/sage/rings/polynomial/real_roots.pyx is missing ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The following tests failed: ./devel/sage/sage/rings/polynomial/real_roots.pyx # File not found Total time for all tests: 0.0 seconds maldun@zauberbuch:~/sage/sage-4.5.2$ sage -t -valgrind "devel/sage/sage/rings/polynomial/real_roots.pyx" sage -t -valgrind "devel/sage/sage/rings/polynomial/real_roots.pyx" ********************************************************************** File "/home/maldun/sage/sage-4.5.2/devel/sage/sage/rings/polynomial/real_roots.pyx", line 1819, in __main__.example_76 Failed example: oc.find_roots()###line 3064:_sage_ >>> oc.find_roots() Expected nothing Got: doctest:1: RuntimeWarning: tp_compare didn't return -1 or -2 for exception ********************************************************************** File "/home/maldun/sage/sage-4.5.2/devel/sage/sage/rings/polynomial/real_roots.pyx", line 1840, in __main__.example_77 Failed example: oc.find_roots()###line 3085:_sage_ >>> oc.find_roots() Expected nothing Got: doctest:1: RuntimeWarning: tp_compare didn't return -1 or -2 for exception ********************************************************************** File "/home/maldun/sage/sage-4.5.2/devel/sage/sage/rings/polynomial/real_roots.pyx", line 1934, in __main__.example_80 Failed example: oc.find_roots()###line 3157:_sage_ >>> oc.find_roots() Expected nothing Got: doctest:1: RuntimeWarning: tp_compare didn't return -1 or -2 for exception ********************************************************************** File "/home/maldun/sage/sage-4.5.2/devel/sage/sage/rings/polynomial/real_roots.pyx", line 2320, in __main__.example_98 Failed example: real_roots(x**Integer(5) * (x**Integer(2) - Integer(9999))**Integer(2) - Integer(1))###line 3870:_sage_ >>> real_roots(x^5 * (x^2 - 9999)^2 - 1) Expected: [((-29274496381311/9007199254740992, 419601125186091/2251799813685248), 1), ((2126658450145849453951061654415153249597/21267647932558653966460912964485513216, 4253316902721330018853696359533061621799/42535295865117307932921825928971026432), 1), ((1063329226287740282451317352558954186101/10633823966279326983230456482242756608, 531664614358685696701445201630854654353/5316911983139663491615228241121378304), 1)] Got: doctest:1: RuntimeWarning: tp_compare didn't return -1 or -2 for exception [((-29274496381311/9007199254740992, 419601125186091/2251799813685248), 1), ((2126658450145849453951061654415153249597/21267647932558653966460912964485513216, 4253316902721330018853696359533061621799/42535295865117307932921825928971026432), 1), ((1063329226287740282451317352558954186101/10633823966279326983230456482242756608, 531664614358685696701445201630854654353/5316911983139663491615228241121378304), 1)] ********************************************************************** 4 items had failures: 1 of 10 in __main__.example_76 1 of 9 in __main__.example_77 1 of 10 in __main__.example_80 1 of 44 in __main__.example_98 ***Test Failed*** 4 failures. [227.6 s] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The following tests failed: sage -t -valgrind "devel/sage/sage/rings/polynomial/real_roots.pyx" Total time for all tests: 227.6 seconds
This is not the only one, but the root of evil seems to be in real_roots (how ironic...) more precisly: I tracked it down, with help of valgrind, to the class ocean. Has anyone an Idea??
comment:20 Changed 11 years ago by
- Summary changed from Upgrade numpy to 1.5.0rc1 and scipy to 0.8 to Upgrade numpy to 1.5 and scipy to 0.8
comment:21 Changed 11 years ago by
Update: Found the problem. see: http://groups.google.com/group/cython-users/browse_thread/thread/624c696293b7fe44
It seems that all versions 1.5.x hold this bug.... Tried downgrading to 1.4.1. and all corrections I have done so far worked.
I will now apply the patch from drkirkby, pack it again, test it overnight and hopefully we are done with 1.4.1, and hopefully they get it right in the next time. perhaps I should send the numpy/scipy guys the doctests I've done so far
scipy 0.8. don't seem to make any problems so far
comment:22 Changed 11 years ago by
- Summary changed from Upgrade numpy to 1.5 and scipy to 0.8 to Upgrade numpy to 1.4.1 and scipy to 0.8
comment:23 follow-up: ↓ 24 Changed 11 years ago by
an doctest I oversaw:
Type ``numpy.typecodes`` for a list of the possible typecodes:: sage: import numpy sage: sorted(numpy.typecodes.items()) [('All', '?bhilqpBHILQPfdgFDGSUVOMm'), ('AllFloat', 'fdgFDG'), ('AllInteger', 'bBhHiIlLqQpP'), ('Character', 'c'), ('Complex', 'FDG'), ('Datetime', 'Mm'), ('Float', 'fdg'), ('Integer', 'bhilqp'), ('UnsignedInteger', 'BHILQP')]
The output is now:
[('All', '?bhilqpBHILQPfdgFDGSUVOMm'), ('AllFloat', 'fdgFDG'), ('AllInteger', 'bBhHiIlLqQpP'), ('Character', 'c'), ('Complex', 'FDG'), ('Datetime', 'Mm'), ('Float', 'fdg'), ('Integer', 'bhilqp'), ('UnsignedInteger', 'BHILQP')]
But since it's an extension, and no downgrade it is also no prob
comment:24 in reply to: ↑ 23 ; follow-up: ↓ 25 Changed 11 years ago by
Replying to maldun:
an doctest I oversaw:
Type ``numpy.typecodes`` for a list of the possible typecodes:: sage: import numpy sage: sorted(numpy.typecodes.items()) [('All', '?bhilqpBHILQPfdgFDGSUVOMm'), ('AllFloat', 'fdgFDG'), ('AllInteger', 'bBhHiIlLqQpP'), ('Character', 'c'), ('Complex', 'FDG'), ('Datetime', 'Mm'), ('Float', 'fdg'), ('Integer', 'bhilqp'), ('UnsignedInteger', 'BHILQP')]The output is now:
[('All', '?bhilqpBHILQPfdgFDGSUVOMm'), ('AllFloat', 'fdgFDG'), ('AllInteger', 'bBhHiIlLqQpP'), ('Character', 'c'), ('Complex', 'FDG'), ('Datetime', 'Mm'), ('Float', 'fdg'), ('Integer', 'bhilqp'), ('UnsignedInteger', 'BHILQP')]But since it's an extension, and no downgrade it is also no prob
the doctest should be fixed as well. I have attached a new version of spkg-install for numpy if you cared to give it a spin. It completely drop the non-cygwin patches. It may need a little bit of work as I haven't looked yet at how you included Dave's fix.
comment:25 in reply to: ↑ 24 Changed 11 years ago by
- Status changed from needs_work to needs_review
Replying to fbissey:
the doctest should be fixed as well. I have attached a new version of spkg-install for numpy if you cared to give it a spin. It completely drop the non-cygwin patches. It may need a little bit of work as I haven't looked yet at how you included Dave's fix.
Your install file worked well for me. I have merged it, such that the patches are getting applied. All doctests work now. You can download the packages now at: http://code.google.com/p/spkg-upload/downloads/detail?name=numpy-1.4.1.spkg and http://code.google.com/p/spkg-upload/downloads/detail?name=scipy-0.8.spkg
but you also have to install a modified version of networkx. I have opened a ticket for this, and this also includes a package: http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/9854
next I will add a patch which includes the changed doctests
comment:26 Changed 11 years ago by
One important note: after updating numpy one has to rebuild the source with sage -ba, or else you get runtime warnings.
The reason is the size change in some of the numpy functions, and then the .pyx files have to be rebuild
comment:27 follow-up: ↓ 28 Changed 11 years ago by
Thanks for the patches. I will probably introduce these in sage-on-gentoo in short order. About networkx, you realize that sage-4.5.3 will use networkx-1.2? see ticket #9567 So have you tried to see if networkx-1.2 needs patching (my guess is no, otherwise I would know by now from gentoo).
comment:28 in reply to: ↑ 27 ; follow-up: ↓ 29 Changed 11 years ago by
Replying to fbissey:
Thanks for the patches. I will probably introduce these in sage-on-gentoo in short order. About networkx, you realize that sage-4.5.3 will use networkx-1.2? see ticket #9567 So have you tried to see if networkx-1.2 needs patching (my guess is no, otherwise I would know by now from gentoo).
I've seen that networkx 1.2. is out but it doesn't seem to work with my sage-4.2 with numpy 1.4.1 nor with my sage-4.1 with the old numpy so I created this spkg in order that it can be used with old versions of sage too
But it seems the line where the problems come from doesn't exist in the new version of networkx anymore. Could you give the numpy packages a spin with the new versions of numpy/scipy? It is very time consuming for me to rebuild every time the source. Thanx in advance!
comment:29 in reply to: ↑ 28 Changed 11 years ago by
ith the new versions of numpy/scipy? It is very time consuming for me to rebuild every time the source. Thanx in advance!
sorry I meant new versions of networkx...
comment:30 Changed 11 years ago by
Understood. We already ship networkx-1.2 with sage-4.5.2 on sage-on-gentoo [because networkx-1.0.1 has been removed from Gentoo] so I can test your patches along with networkx. It may take 1 or 2 days for me to fit it in my schedule.
comment:31 Changed 11 years ago by
ok. Since I had some time this afternoon I build a version of sage-1.4.3.alpha1 (which also has networkx-1.2.) on my machine, applied the packages, the patch, rebuild the source with sage -ba and everything worked fine!
./sage -tp 4 -long devel/sage-numpy .... sage -t -long devel/sage-numpy/doc/en/a_tour_of_sage/index.rst [23.1 s] sage -t -long devel/sage-numpy/doc/en/thematic_tutorials/group_theory.rst [247.1 s] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- All tests passed! Timings have been updated. Total time for all tests: 7320.5 seconds
So networkx-1.2 works!
For Info: I use Ubuntu 10.04 on my machine. So I think it would still be good if someone else would test it
comment:32 Changed 11 years ago by
- Milestone changed from sage-4.6 to sage-4.5.3
comment:33 follow-up: ↓ 34 Changed 11 years ago by
It all works in sage-on-gentoo.
However I think there are a few points that should be taken into consideration for both numpy and scipy. Just before posting my spkg-install I edited it to remove a change that I now think is probably necessary. I had set FC to SAGE_FORTRAN... Why? Because numpy tries to autodetect a fortran compiler and will take a gnu compiler first. Unless you set FC. Which means if Dave tries to compile sage with sunstudio on a machine that has also gfortran he is in for a world of hurt. So I think we should either set FC to SAGE_FORTRAN in numpy and possibly scipy. The other option is to set it globally but that may cause problems on OSX.
Thoughts? Francois
comment:34 in reply to: ↑ 33 Changed 11 years ago by
Replying to fbissey:
It all works in sage-on-gentoo.
However I think there are a few points that should be taken into consideration for both numpy and scipy. Just before posting my spkg-install I edited it to remove a change that I now think is probably necessary. I had set FC to SAGE_FORTRAN... Why? Because numpy tries to autodetect a fortran compiler and will take a gnu compiler first. Unless you set FC. Which means if Dave tries to compile sage with sunstudio on a machine that has also gfortran he is in for a world of hurt. So I think we should either set FC to SAGE_FORTRAN in numpy and possibly scipy. The other option is to set it globally but that may cause problems on OSX.
Thoughts? Francois
A very pragmatic thougt: If it doesn"t hurt to set FC to SAGE_FORTRAN, why not? But I think it"s better not to do it globally. Because then we could cause more problems then we solve. Can you give a modified spkg-install? I can try it out over night then.
But I think it would also be good to get some feedback for Solaris and OSX for the current versions. Then we could decide to keep the current, or to take the other.
comment:35 follow-up: ↓ 36 Changed 11 years ago by
Good news: It seems that the problem from numpy-1.5.0 has been resolved http://projects.scipy.org/numpy/ticket/1605 I don't think it's a big deal. Shall I give it a try, or should we stick to 1.4.1 for now?
comment:36 in reply to: ↑ 35 Changed 11 years ago by
Replying to maldun:
Good news: It seems that the problem from numpy-1.5.0 has been resolved http://projects.scipy.org/numpy/ticket/1605 I don't think it's a big deal. Shall I give it a try, or should we stick to 1.4.1 for now?
...or wait til 1.5.1 is out?
comment:37 Changed 11 years ago by
May be wait until numpy-1.5.1. it is not a big deal right now I guess. May be we should discuss it on sage-devel. At the moment we don't really have much testing apart from the fact I unleashed the upgrade to numpy-1.4.1/scipy-0.8 on sage-on-gentoo users. I am not sure we can believably merge this in 4.5.3 unless it takes more than one week before it is released. If we target 4.5.3 I say we stay with what we have now, if we target 4.6 which should be a little further down the track we go for 1.5.x.
comment:38 Changed 11 years ago by
I updated my spkg_install as you requested. The other thing about using sage_fortran, that I had forgotten to change back when I removed it, is that it includes "-fPIC". I didn't check the fortran spkg but hopefully the work done by Dave to set the correct pic flag is picked up in sage_fortran.
If we don't adopt this, FFLAG="-fPIC" (or whatever mechanism Dave came up with) should be added in my previous version.
comment:39 Changed 11 years ago by
Replying to fbissey:
May be wait until numpy-1.5.1. it is not a big deal right now I guess. May be we should discuss it on sage-devel. At the moment we don't really have much testing apart from the fact I unleashed the upgrade to numpy-1.4.1/scipy-0.8 on sage-on-gentoo users. I am not sure we can believably merge this in 4.5.3 unless it takes more than one week before it is released. If we target 4.5.3 I say we stay with what we have now, if we target 4.6 which should be a little further down the track we go for 1.5.x.
Ok I think we should do the following: Let's stick to 1.4.1 since it is necessary for scipy 0.8. and quite well tested yet, in contrary to 1.5.x and it seems to work. Especially since the update from scipy 0.7 to 0.8 holds a lot of changes, and we don't know if they build some more bugs into numpy 1.5.1... If it turns out that updating from 1.4.1 to 1.5.1 is no problem, then well... packing a new package would'nt be the prob I think.
@new spkg: Ok I will give it a try tonight!
comment:40 follow-up: ↓ 41 Changed 11 years ago by
There's a lot of packages etc. on this ticket. Can someone provide a concise list of what would be needed to apply on a given platform? (For instance, in a very cursory glance, the networkx package being here mystifies.)
comment:41 in reply to: ↑ 40 Changed 11 years ago by
Replying to kcrisman:
There's a lot of packages etc. on this ticket. Can someone provide a concise list of what would be needed to apply on a given platform? (For instance, in a very cursory glance, the networkx package being here mystifies.)
Needed are: http://code.google.com/p/spkg-upload/downloads/detail?name=numpy-1.4.1.spkg http://code.google.com/p/spkg-upload/downloads/detail?name=scipy-0.8.spkg
after installing numpy, one needs so execute sage -ba, or else one get's runtime warnings.
You also need networkx-1.2. (the other networkx is just a small hack for testing, because 1.2. didn't build correctly on my machine, but this is obsolete now, since networkx-1.2 is merged into sage 4.3.alpha1)
comment:42 Changed 11 years ago by
- Description modified (diff)
comment:43 Changed 11 years ago by
- Description modified (diff)
comment:44 Changed 11 years ago by
I gave the links and (current) build instructions into the discription, so that people can find the latest versions more quickly
comment:45 Changed 11 years ago by
- Description modified (diff)
comment:46 Changed 11 years ago by
- Description modified (diff)
Included direct links to files in description.
I have now workable spkg files for the both packages. Scipy worked well. Numpy need some work, but it's functioning.
I host the files at megaupload, at: Numpy: http://www.megaupload.com/?d=6GCFZD65 Scipy: http://www.megaupload.com/?d=JORT40DK
I think the problem is the same as described in Trac # 7791 (http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/7791 )
I get the following errors:
What's this? Has someone hardcoded the sizes of the routines?