sagemath: update to 10.8. #58320
sagemath: update to 10.8. #58320
Conversation
|
Thanks, I'll have a look later. |
|
@tornaria I was not aware of the debates going on within sage, which led to dropping sagemath-standard among other things. (see e.g. sagemath/sage#41336 (comment) ). If you prefer to do things differenlty in Void, just let me know and I will close this PR. |
dkwo
force-pushed
the
sage108
branch
3 times, most recently
from
361c28e to
14f8dba
Compare
dkwo
force-pushed
the
sage108
branch
2 times, most recently
from
2199dcc to
c723f2f
Compare
dkwo
force-pushed
the
sage108
branch
3 times, most recently
from
142bb66 to
8403bc9
Compare
|
This should remain as a draft until the Cython change is merged upstream. |
@dkwo, why is patching cython necessary? What breaks without it? Can we workaround it without patching cython? |
|
I was getting two test failures in sage/misc/sageinspect.py and I was informed in sagemath/sage#39872 (comment) that they are fixed in cython/cython#6755 Maybe we can go ahead without the cython patch for now? |
|
@ahesford @tornaria The cython pull request has been merged cython/cython#6755 |
Indeed, @ahesford what do you think? I can update #58668 either way, is not a big deal (I can workaround the test failures for the time being). It would be nice to move forward with #58668 soon so I'd rather skip the cython patch than stall the PR. |
|
cython/cython#6755 (comment) doesn't inspire a lot of confidence. If that change is only about fixing some tests, I'd rather not pull the patch; let's work around the test failure until the change makes it into a proper Cython release. If that change fixes some important functionality in Sage, we can pull the patch and take our chances. |
I'll push a workaround then. As a matter of fact, we weren't using |
|
Let us continue discussion in #58668 ,which includes this pr. |
|
Let us continue discussion in #58668 ,which includes this pr. |
3 participants
Built and tested on
aarch64-glibc.