Is anyone packaging sage?

[Neal Becker]

http://sage.math.washington.edu/sage/

[Jef Spaleta]

On Jan 4, 2008 1:01 PM, Neal Becker <ndbecker2(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:
>  http://sage.math.washington.edu/sage/ 
holy crap.... that looks pretty awesome.

I can't be primary maintainer for this, but if you are going to work
on it I can help.

-jef

[Peter Boy]

Am Freitag, den 04.01.2008, 13:06 -0900 schrieb Jeff Spaleta:
>  On Jan 4, 2008 1:01 PM, Neal Becker <ndbecker2(a)gmail.com&gt;
> wrote:
>  > http://sage.math.washington.edu/sage/
>  
>  holy crap.... that looks pretty awesome. 
Just for information: what is specifically crap according to your
perspective (I'm looking for open source scientific software and it's a
serious question)?

[Josh Boyer]

On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 23:39:33 +0000
Peter Boy <pboy(a)barkhof.uni-bremen.de&gt; wrote:

>  Am Freitag, den 04.01.2008, 13:06 -0900 schrieb Jeff Spaleta:
>  > On Jan 4, 2008 1:01 PM, Neal Becker <ndbecker2(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:
>  > > http://sage.math.washington.edu/sage/
>  > 
>  > holy crap.... that looks pretty awesome.
>  
>  Just for information: what is specifically crap according to your
>  perspective (I'm looking for open source scientific software and it's a
>  serious question)? 
Holy crap is slang.  It's akin to "Oh wow", or "Holy cow", or
"Gee
Wiz".  Jeff wasn't saying the software was crappy.  He was expressing
excitement.

josh

[Jef Spaleta]

On Jan 4, 2008 2:49 PM, Josh Boyer <jwboyer(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:
>  Holy crap is slang.  It's akin to "Oh wow", or
> "Holy cow", or "Gee
>  Wiz".  Jeff wasn't saying the software was crappy.  He was expressing
>  excitement. 
I'm so excited by this, that I'm contacting all the physics and math
educators that I personally know and getting them to take a look at
this.
An open source... competitor to Maple or Mathematica with a a web
browser interface is a huge huge thing.  It doesn't have to be feature
complete compared to the competition.. it just has to be good enough
to get it in the door at schools and easy enough for teachers and
studdents to use.  I really want to put a few demonstrations setups of
sage together as quickly as i can and have educators and students beat
on it.  This is a non-trivial thing.

-jef

[Peter Boy]

Am Freitag, den 04.01.2008, 14:54 -0900 schrieb Jeff Spaleta:
>  I'm so excited by this, that I'm contacting all the physics
> and math
>  educators that I personally know and getting them to take a look at
>  this.
>  An open source... competitor to Maple or Mathematica with a a web
>  browser interface is a huge huge thing.  It doesn't have to be feature
>  complete compared to the competition.. it just has to be good enough
>  to get it in the door at schools and easy enough for teachers and
>  studdents to use.  I really want to put a few demonstrations setups of
>  sage together as quickly as i can and have educators and students beat
>  on it.  This is a non-trivial thing. 
Oh, thanks for responding. I'm a statistican in social science research
and try to promote free software in my lessons and my own reseach (and
didn't know about sage before). Therefore I'm very interested when you
finished preparation of some demonstrations!

Peter

[Jef Spaleta]

On Jan 4, 2008 4:25 PM, Peter Boy <pboy(a)barkhof.uni-bremen.de&gt; wrote:
>  Oh, thanks for responding. I'm a statistican in social science
> research
>  and try to promote free software in my lessons and my own reseach (and
>  didn't know about sage before). Therefore I'm very interested when you
>  finished preparation of some demonstrations! 
The main sage project website has a link to a demo "Notebook" that you
can register with and create worksheets.

-jef

[Peter Boy]

Am Freitag, den 04.01.2008, 17:49 -0600 schrieb Josh Boyer:
>  Holy crap is slang.  It's akin to "Oh wow", or
> "Holy cow", or "Gee
>  Wiz".  Jeff wasn't saying the software was crappy.  He was expressing
>  excitement. 
Oh, what a misunderstanding. I'll work to improve my English language
skills  :-)


Peter

[Neal Becker]

Jeff Spaleta wrote:

>  On Jan 4, 2008 1:01 PM, Neal Becker <ndbecker2(a)gmail.com&gt;
> wrote:
> > http://sage.math.washington.edu/sage/
>  
>  holy crap.... that looks pretty awesome.
>  
>  I can't be primary maintainer for this, but if you are going to work
>  on it I can help.
>  
>  -jef 
I'm happy to hear that others are interested in this too.  Here is a link
that I think will be helpful:

http://wiki.sagemath.org/DebianSAGE

I have just been discussing this with one of the Debian sage developers. 
There are several sage-related groups available through gmane (I think they
are mirrors of google groups)

[Manuel Wolfshant]

On 01/05/2008 12:06 AM, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
>  On Jan 4, 2008 1:01 PM, Neal Becker <ndbecker2(a)gmail.com&gt;
> wrote:
>    
> > http://sage.math.washington.edu/sage/
> >     
>
>  holy crap.... that looks pretty awesome.
>
>  I can't be primary maintainer for this, but if you are going to work
>  on it I can help.
>     
    I've uploaded at http://wolfy.fedorapeople.org/sage my first attempt 
to create a spec for sage. I am not going to be primary maintainer 
either (and I do know that all the prereqs and optionals should end up 
in separate packages) 'cause I have no personal use for this program. 
However to give a kickstart.
    I have also included a patch which removes from the sage install 
script the parts which I think that are already available in rawhide.
    The build log for a mock build (which dies when trying to compile 
python_gnutls) is also there.  A quick glance over it makes me think 
that a few prereqs could already be packaged and submitted for review
    Oh, and btw, I've used Jakub's new gcc-4.3.0 We do target F9, don't we ?
    If anyone wishes to merge the efforts with mine, please get in touch 
with me.

       manuel

[Kevin Kofler]

Manuel Wolfshant <wolfy <at> nobugconsulting.ro> writes:
>      I have also included a patch which removes from the sage install
>
>  script the parts which I think that are already available in rawhide. 
Still, a monolithic solution like this is not going to fly, every single of 
these separate projects needs to be packaged separately, usually directly from 
upstream, not from the bundled often outdated version in SAGE. Unfortunately, 
SAGE tries to be yet another program which tries to be a distro, this sucks. 
Out of spkg/standard/*.spkg, as a first guess, only 
spkg/standard/*-2.9.1.1.spkg makes sense to package as part of SAGE, that would 
be doc, examples, extcode, sage and sage_scripts. And these should be 5 
separate packages or subpackages (e.g. sagemath, sagemath-doc, 
sagemath-examples, sagemath-extcode, sagemath-scripts).

Moreover, at least in your build.log, it appears also to still build stuff like 
ATLAS and gnutls which are already in Fedora (and the gnutls build failed).

        Kevin Kofler

[Manuel Wolfshant]

On 01/05/2008 10:38 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>  Manuel Wolfshant <wolfy <at> nobugconsulting.ro> writes:
>    
> >     I have also included a patch which removes from the sage install 
> > script the parts which I think that are already available in rawhide.
> >     
>
>  Still, a monolithic solution like this is not going to fly, every single of 
>  these separate projects needs to be packaged separately, 
    I absolutely agree
with you. I have mentioned that I agree with 
having all prereqs as separate packages. But I wanted to see things 
started and to isolate the BRs

>   usually directly from 
>  upstream, not from the bundled often outdated version in SAGE. 
agree again

>   Unfortunately, 
>  SAGE tries to be yet another program which tries to be a distro, this sucks. 
>     
they just want top be sure that what they ship, works. I can understand 
that. That does not mean that I agree.



>  Out of spkg/standard/*.spkg, as a first guess, only 
>  spkg/standard/*-2.9.1.1.spkg makes sense to package as part of SAGE, that would 
>  be doc, examples, extcode, sage and sage_scripts. And these should be 5 
>  separate packages or subpackages (e.g. sagemath, sagemath-doc, 
>  sagemath-examples, sagemath-extcode, sagemath-scripts).
>
>  Moreover, at least in your build.log, it appears also to still build stuff like 
>  ATLAS  
I have not noticed it in the repo...
>  and gnutls which are already in Fedora (and the gnutls build
> failed).
>     
no, it's python-gnutls that failed

[Michael Thomas]

Neal Becker wrote:
>  http://sage.math.washington.edu/sage/ 
Note that the name 'sage' conflicts with another package that already 
lives in Fedora:

https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/packages/name/sage

--Wart

[Seth Vidal]

On Fri, 2008-01-04 at 15:51 -0800, Michael Thomas wrote:
>  Neal Becker wrote:
>  > http://sage.math.washington.edu/sage/
>  
>  Note that the name 'sage' conflicts with another package that already 
>  lives in Fedora:
>  
>  https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/packages/name/sage 

then calling it sagemath solves that, right?

-sv

[Michael Thomas]

seth vidal wrote:
>  On Fri, 2008-01-04 at 15:51 -0800, Michael Thomas wrote:
> > Neal Becker wrote:
> >> http://sage.math.washington.edu/sage/
> > Note that the name 'sage' conflicts with another package that already 
> > lives in Fedora:
> >
> > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/packages/name/sage
>  
>  
>  then calling it sagemath solves that, right? 
Sure does.  I just wanted to bring up the issue now before it causes 
problems later.

--Wart

[Debarshi Ray]

>  Note that the name 'sage' conflicts with another package that
> already
>  lives in Fedora:
>
>  https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/packages/name/sage 
For what it is worth, Debian calls it libsage:
http://packages.debian.org/stable/libdevel/libsage-dev

Cheers,
Debarshi

[C.M. Connelly]

"D'R" == Debarshi 'Rishi' Ray <debarshi.ray(a)gmail.com&gt;

    D'R> For what it is worth, Debian calls it libsage:
    D'R> http://packages.debian.org/stable/libdevel/libsage-dev

That's actually a completely unrelated package -- libsage is some
sort of OpenGL library.

I'm not sure there is a name yet -- the project doesn't seem to be
at the point where they're ready to upload packages to Debian
proper; they're still working out which bits they can pull from
Debian and which bits need to be packaged.

Details on the Debian packaging front are in a wiki [0]; there's
also a mailing list [1]. It might be nice to see if there could be
a more generalized push for distributions one level above, as much
of the work that isn't specifically related to packaging is going
to be identical.  (Identifying components to package, followed by
figuring out which pieces are already available in a distribution
and which aren't but need to be, followed by figuring out how to
package the sage-specific glue that makes all the pieces work
together.)  There's actually a discussion about that very thing on
the list. [2]

It seems like there are multiple licensing issues, which isn't a
big shock from my experience packaging mathematical software.

My users are very interested in having access to SAGE (we're
running CentOS 3, with a move to CentOS 5 in the near future), so
I would be very interested in seeing SAGE packaged for Fedora,
EPEL, or one of the other repos.

   Claire

[0] <http://wiki.sagemath.org/DebianSAGE>
[1] <http://groups.google.com/group/debian-sage>
[2]
<http://groups.google.com/group/debian-sage/browse_thread/thread/4f95d626f...

*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
  Claire Connelly                              cmc(a)math.hmc.edu 
  Systems Administrator                          [phone]   
  Department of Mathematics                 Harvey Mudd College
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*

[Rex Dieter]

Any movement, work, progress here?  Had some local faculty ask about this,
so I could devote some cycles to help move things along.

If I don't hear anything, I'll jump in and get started soon myself.

-- Rex

[Neal Becker]

Rex Dieter wrote:

>  Any movement, work, progress here?  Had some local faculty ask about
> this,
>  so I could devote some cycles to help move things along.
>  
>  If I don't hear anything, I'll jump in and get started soon myself.
>  
>  -- Rex
>   
I just submitted cython, I think that's 1 little piece.

If you do this, look at debian.  They've done a lot of work on breaking this
into bitesize pieces (or is that bytesize?)

[brad longo]

Rex Dieter wrote:
>  Any movement, work, progress here?  Had some local faculty ask about
> this,
>  so I could devote some cycles to help move things along.
>
>  If I don't hear anything, I'll jump in and get started soon myself.
>
>  -- Rex
>
>     
I have started a spec file for sage.  Unfortunately there is no 
configure or make install script to install; there is only a make file.  
I don't know how to fix that so I'm kind of stuck.  The setup command 
looks for a configure script first, so thats where its breaking right 
now. Someone help me out here and I'll keep going with it.
Brad

[Neal Becker]

brad wrote:

>  Rex Dieter wrote:
> > Any movement, work, progress here?  Had some local faculty ask about
> > this, so I could devote some cycles to help move things along.
> >
> > If I don't hear anything, I'll jump in and get started soon myself.
> >
> > -- Rex
> >
> >   
>  I have started a spec file for sage.  Unfortunately there is no
>  configure or make install script to install; there is only a make file.
>  I don't know how to fix that so I'm kind of stuck.  The setup command
>  looks for a configure script first, so thats where its breaking right
>  now. Someone help me out here and I'll keep going with it.
>  Brad
>  
>  
>   
I suggest looking here:
http://wiki.sagemath.org/DebianSAGE

[Rex Dieter]

brad wrote:

>  Rex Dieter wrote:
> > Any movement, work, progress here?  Had some local faculty ask about
> > this, so I could devote some cycles to help move things along.
> >
> > If I don't hear anything, I'll jump in and get started soon myself. 
  
>  I have started a spec file for sage.  Unfortunately there is no
>  configure or make install script to install; there is only a make file.
>  I don't know how to fix that so I'm kind of stuck.  The setup command
>  looks for a configure script first, so thats where its breaking right
>  now. Someone help me out here and I'll keep going with it. 
OK, can I take a look at what you have?  (post to the web for download or
emailing me directly is fine).

-- Rex

[Alex Lancaster]

> >>>> "RD" == Rex Dieter  writes: 
RD> brad wrote:
> > Rex Dieter wrote:
> > Any movement, work, progress here?  Had some local faculty ask
> > about
> >> this, so I could devote some cycles to help move things along.
> >> 
> >> If I don't hear anything, I'll jump in and get started soon
> >> myself. 
  
> > I have started a spec file for sage.  Unfortunately there is no
> > configure or make install script to install; there is only a make
> > file.  I don't know how to fix that so I'm kind of stuck.  The
> > setup command looks for a configure script first, so thats where
> > its breaking right now. Someone help me out here and I'll keep
> > going with it. 
RD> OK, can I take a look at what you have?  (post to the web for
RD> download or emailing me directly is fine).

I'm also interested in helping out.  I probably won't have time to do
any packaging, but count me in for doing packaging reviews.  Perhaps
we should start a wiki page under:

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/SciTech

e.g.:

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/SciTech/SAGE

Alex

[Rex Dieter]

Alex Lancaster wrote:

>  I'm also interested in helping out.  I probably won't have
> time to do
>  any packaging, but count me in for doing packaging reviews.  Perhaps
>  we should start a wiki page under: 
...
>  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/SciTech/SAGE 
Excellent idea.  Page init'd.  

-- Rex

[brad longo]

Alex Lancaster wrote:
> >>>>> "RD" == Rex Dieter  writes:
> >>>>>             
>
>  RD> brad wrote:
>    
> >> Rex Dieter wrote:
> >> Any movement, work, progress here?  Had some local faculty ask
> >> about
> >>       
> >>> this, so I could devote some cycles to help move things along.
> >>>
> >>> If I don't hear anything, I'll jump in and get started soon
> >>> myself.
> >>>         
>    
>    
> >> I have started a spec file for sage.  Unfortunately there is no
> >> configure or make install script to install; there is only a make
> >> file.  I don't know how to fix that so I'm kind of stuck.  The
> >> setup command looks for a configure script first, so thats where
> >> its breaking right now. Someone help me out here and I'll keep
> >> going with it.
> >>       
>
>  RD> OK, can I take a look at what you have?  (post to the web for
>  RD> download or emailing me directly is fine).
>
>  I'm also interested in helping out.  I probably won't have time to do
>  any packaging, but count me in for doing packaging reviews.  Perhaps
>  we should start a wiki page under:
>
>  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/SciTech
>
>  e.g.:
>
>  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/SciTech/SAGE
>
>  Alex
>
>     
I have attached the spec file as I have it so far.  There really isn't 
that much in there yet, although it is a start.  I'll try to find some 
time tomorrow to mess around with it.  

Brad Longo

[Horst H. von Brand]

brad <Bl0ngo067(a)aim.com&gt; wrote:

...

>  I have attached the spec file as I have it so far.  There really
> isn't
>  that much in there yet, although it is a start.  I'll try to find some
>  time tomorrow to mess around with it.
>  
>  Brad Longo
>  Name: sage           
>  Version: 2.10.1      
>  Release: 1%{?dist}
>  Summary: Open Source Mathematics Software       
>  
>  Group: Development/Tools
>  License: GNU General Public License (GPL)
>  URL: http://sage.math.washington.edu/sage/
>  Source0: sage-2.10.1.tar       
>  BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
>  
>  BuildRequires: gcc >= 4.1.2  
>  BuildRequires: gcc-c++ >= 4.1.2
>  BuildRequires: m4 >= 1.4.10 
>  BuildRequires: make >= 3.81
>  BuildRequires: binutils >= 2.17.50.0.18
>  #Requires:
>  
>  %description
>  Use SAGE for studying a huge range of mathematics, including algebra, calculus,
> elementary to very advanced number theory, cryptography, numerical computation,
> commutative algebra, group theory, combinatorics, graph theory, and exact linear algebra. 
> SAGE makes it easy for you to use most mathematics software together. SAGE includes
> interfaces to Magma, Maple, Mathematica, MATLAB, and MuPAD, and the free programs Axiom,
> GAP, GP/PARI, Macaulay2, Maxima, Octave, and Singular. 
>  
>  %prep
>  %setup -q 
>  # ^^ As of right now the spec file breaks here at setup.  Setup looks for
>    a configure script, does not find one, and then it breaks. 
%setup has never done such a thing... are you sure no %configure snuck in?
In any case, what %setup does is mostly to unpack the sources, so you can
do it by hand if absolutely needed.

>  # At least those were my results.
>  
>  
>  %build
>  #%configure --prefix=/usr  
>  #I have commented this because there is no configure script.
>  make %{?_smp_mflags} 
You might have to add CFLAGS="$PM_OPT_FLAGS" or some such to get the right
compilation flags. And/or add a patch to fix up the Makefile(s). That if
there is no home-brewed configuration machinery you can use.

>  %install
>  #rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
>  #make install DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT  
>  
>  #This is also commented because there is no make install.   
Just create the needed directories and install the files under them by hand
then.

>  %clean
>  rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
>  
>  
>  %files
>  %defattr(-,root,root,-)
>  %doc README.txt
>  %doc HISTORY.txt
>  %doc COPYING.txt 
List here the files you installed above.

>  %changelog
>  *Mon Feb 18 2008 Brad Longo <bjlongo(a)ncsu.edu&gt; -2.10.1 
Should be: 2.10.1-1 (version-release), i.e.,

*Mon Feb 18 2008 Brad Longo <bjlongo(a)ncsu.edu&gt; 2.10.1-1
-- 
Dr. Horst H. von Brand                   User #22616 counter.li.org
Departamento de Informatica                    Fono: [phone]
Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria             [phone]
Casilla 110-V, Valparaiso, Chile               Fax:  [phone]

[Kevin Kofler]

Neal Becker <ndbecker2 <at> gmail.com> writes:
>  http://sage.math.washington.edu/sage/ 
This looks interesting, and indeed it would be nice to have this in Fedora. I 
don't know of any existing efforts to package it.

One problem will be that they're bundling many third-party components which 
should be packaged separately:
http://sage.math.washington.edu/sage/doc/html/inst/intro.html

So the first step is to track down which of these dependencies are in Fedora 
already, whether they need any patches to work with SAGE, whether they are 
build-time (BuildRequires) dependencies, run-time (Requires) dependencies or 
both, whether they're required or optional and package those which are not in 
Fedora yet.

I'd do things in the following order:
1. package required build-time dependencies
2. package required run-time dependencies
3. package as many optional build-time dependencies as possible
4. package SAGE itself
5. package optional run-time dependencies (and decide on a case by case basis 
whether it makes sense to add them as actual Requires: dependencies to the 
package or not)

Please tell us of your progress and link to any review requests as you submit 
them. If you need help with the dependencies, please tell us that too.

I think we could really use a Mathematics SIG. Count me as interested (I'm a 
PhD student in Mathematics). I think Rex Dieter is likely to be interested too 
as he's working as a sysadmin for the Department of Mathematics at UNL. (Of 
course we're both already very busy with KDE SIG matters though. ;-) ) And as 
the interest in this thread is showing, there's probably more potentially 
interested folks. :-)

        Kevin Kofler

[Andreas Bierfert]

On Sat, 5 Jan 2008 10:29:05 +0000 (UTC)
Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler(a)chello.at&gt; wrote:

>  I'd do things in the following order:
>  1. package required build-time dependencies
>  2. package required run-time dependencies
>  3. package as many optional build-time dependencies as possible
>  4. package SAGE itself
>  5. package optional run-time dependencies (and decide on a case by case basis 
>  whether it makes sense to add them as actual Requires: dependencies to the 
>  package or not) 
Sounds good to me. Would be cool to make a wiki page with these things and let
people assign themselves to the packages that are not handled yet...

>  I think we could really use a Mathematics SIG. Count me as interested
> (I'm a 
>  PhD student in Mathematics). I think Rex Dieter is likely to be interested
>  too as he's working as a sysadmin for the Department of Mathematics at UNL.
>  (Of course we're both already very busy with KDE SIG matters though. ;-) )
>  And as the interest in this thread is showing, there's probably more
>  potentially interested folks. :-) 
+1

- Andreas

-- 
Andreas Bierfert, B.Sc.        | http://awbsworld.de      | GPG: C58CF1CB
andreas.bierfert(a)lowlatency.de | http://lowlatency.de     | signed/encrypted
phone: [phone]         | cell: [phone]    | mail preferred

[Neal Becker]

Kevin Kofler wrote:

>  Neal Becker <ndbecker2 <at> gmail.com> writes:
> > http://sage.math.washington.edu/sage/
>  
>  This looks interesting, and indeed it would be nice to have this in
>  Fedora. I don't know of any existing efforts to package it.
>  
>  One problem will be that they're bundling many third-party components
>  which should be packaged separately:
>  http://sage.math.washington.edu/sage/doc/html/inst/intro.html
>  
>  So the first step is to track down which of these dependencies are in
>  Fedora already, whether they need any patches to work with SAGE, whether
>  they are build-time (BuildRequires) dependencies, run-time (Requires)
>  dependencies or both, whether they're required or optional and package
>  those which are not in Fedora yet.
>  
>  I'd do things in the following order:
>  1. package required build-time dependencies
>  2. package required run-time dependencies
>  3. package as many optional build-time dependencies as possible
>  4. package SAGE itself
>  5. package optional run-time dependencies (and decide on a case by case
>  basis whether it makes sense to add them as actual Requires: dependencies
>  to the package or not)
>  
>  Please tell us of your progress and link to any review requests as you
>  submit them. If you need help with the dependencies, please tell us that
>  too. 
Here is some info on Debian's packaging effort.  Looks like this would be a
big effort.

http://wiki.sagemath.org/days6/sprint/debian

[José Abílio Matos]

On Saturday 05 January 2008 10:59:59 Neal Becker wrote:
>  Here is some info on Debian's packaging effort.  Looks like this
> would be a
>  big effort.
>
>  http://wiki.sagemath.org/days6/sprint/debian 
I have sage under my radar as well and I would like to help in the (big) 
effort.

I have been following the (recent) planet sage 
http://planet.sagemath.org/atom.xml

and it has some interesting posts.

-- 
José Abílio

[Alex Lancaster]

> >>>> "KK" == Kevin Kofler  writes: 
[...]

KK> Please tell us of your progress and link to any review requests as
KK> you submit them. If you need help with the dependencies, please
KK> tell us that too.

KK> I think we could really use a Mathematics SIG. Count me as
KK> interested (I'm a PhD student in Mathematics). I think Rex Dieter
KK> is likely to be interested too as he's working as a sysadmin for
KK> the Department of Mathematics at UNL. (Of course we're both
KK> already very busy with KDE SIG matters though. ;-) ) And as the
KK> interest in this thread is showing, there's probably more
KK> potentially interested folks. :-)

SAGE looks very cool and is a potential Mathematica-killer (which
would be a very good thing as Mathematica is one of the most
proprietary apps around and has some of the most expensive license
fees and some of the most draconian per-process licensing terms).

So I'd be interested in helping out too.  We don't have a Mathematics
SIG per se, but there is a SciTech sig:

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/SciTech

which is pretty quiet enough as it is, more than 50% of the packages
discussed there are mathematical anyway, so I don't see reason to
create a new separate Mathematics SIG.  I've added a link to SAGE on
that page.  Maybe somebody might like to transfer some of the
discussion here to a subpage of SciTech.

Alex