Re: [sage-support] Re: Sage fails to run python script correctly

[Jan Groenewald]

Hi

[CC-ing to save-devel.]

I ran this on a from-source compiled 5.0.1 sage on Ubuntu 12.04. The problem
is NOT reproduced.

(the underlying problem might still be that during the compilation
somewhere linking to libraries escapes to system versions somewhere, which could
be very hard to trace... I'll leave that for others to ponder)

The upstream binary built on 10.04 running on 12.04 seems to be the problem:
sage-5.0.1-linux-64bit-ubuntu_10.04.3_lts-x86_64-Linux.tar.lzma

Note the 32bit is built ON 12.04 for 12.04, and probably does not exhibit this
problem.
sage-5.0.1-linux-32bit-ubuntu_12.04_lts-i686-Linux.tar.lzma

Is it possible for upstream to build ON Ubuntu 12.04 for 12.04? I have asked
before, and am not sure who is in charge of this.

I have asked a couple of times for build scripts. I am not familiar with build
scripts, cross-compiling, or whether a binary tarball as above is easily
produced with sage -bdist, but if someone helps me I am willing to build
ON 12.04 for 12.04 to be made available in the PPA, or even to build on
multiple versions of Ubuntu.

I'm not comfortable enough with this at the moment to be sure a binary
built on my CPU will run on all 64bit CPUs.

Regards,
Jan




--
  .~.
  /V\     Jan Groenewald
 /( )\    www.aims.ac.za
 ^^-^^

[Jan Groenewald]

As an interesting aside,

This problem, when running succesfully, on Ubuntu 11.04, took this long

from upstream sage binary: 264 seconds
from sage source compiled: 11 seconds

[Dima Pasechnik]

On Thursday, 5 July 2012 18:54:16 UTC+8, Carlos Baptista wrote:

Thank you very much Jan Groenewald. I guess that the problem has now been identified.

So it would be best for me to wait until there is an upstream-binary available via the PPA which is built on 12.04 (64 bit) and for 12.04 (64 bit)? How long might it take, days, weeks, months?

you could better build from the source, should take few hours at most...

  

Enfin, thank you very much Jan Groenewald.

[Jeroen Demeyer]

On 2012-07-05 12:38, Jan Groenewald wrote:
> I have asked a couple of times for build scripts. I am not familiar with
> build
> scripts, cross-compiling, or whether a binary tarball as above is easily
> produced with sage -bdist, but if someone helps me I am willing to build
> ON 12.04 for 12.04 to be made available in the PPA, or even to build on
> multiple versions of Ubuntu.

The official Sage binaries are built on the buildbot:
http://build.sagemath.org/sage/waterfall

The only reason why we don't build a binary on system $FOO is that we
have no machine running system $FOO. So, if you have some machines to
spare, I'll gladly use them for the buildbot.

[Jan Groenewald]

Hi Jeroen,

I have physical machines not on the internet, but I may be able to set something
up. Please contact me off list with details.

Regards,
Jan

[Dima Pasechnik]

If you caan ssh from these machines to boxen then it will be good enough.

[Dima Pasechnik]

Does this look like a missing Sage dependency?

On Friday, 6 July 2012 22:26:53 UTC+8, Dima Pasechnik wrote:

here is why _socket extension does not get build:

/home/carlos/Workspace/Sage/src/sage-5.0.1/spkg/build/python-2.7.3.p0/src/Modules/socketmodule.h:51:33: fatal error: bluetooth/bluetooth.h: No such file or directory

weird...

googling says you need to do

apt-get install libbluetooth-dev

On Friday, 6 July 2012 20:00:24 UTC+8, Carlos Baptista wrote:

Well I am getting this build error:

****************************************************

abort: No module named _socket!

Error with Sage root repository: 'hg incoming' failed.

real    0m0.083s

user    0m0.068s

sys     0m0.008s

************************************************************************

Error installing package sage_root-5.0.1

************************************************************************

I have attached my log file

[Dima Pasechnik]

[Keshav Kini]

Dima Pasechnik <dim...@gmail.com> writes:
> If you caan ssh from these machines to boxen then it will be good enough.

In particular, you might do this on your buildbot machine:

$ sudo apt-get install autossh
$ ssh-keygen # if you haven't done this already
$ ssh-copy-id boxen.math.washington.edu
$ ssh boxen.math.washington.edu # to add boxen's key to known_hosts
[...]
Are you sure you want to continue connecting (yes/no)? yes
boxen $ exit
$ autossh -f -M 0 -N -R <num>:0:22 boxen.math.washington.edu

where <num> is some port number to reserve on boxen. Then one can log
into your machine by logging into boxen and then from there doing `ssh
-p <num> user@0`.

-Keshav

----
Join us in #sagemath on irc.freenode.net !

[Jan Groenewald]

Hi

Jeroen has ssh now, and one can setup key-based login.
I'm not sure why a reverse tunnel is necessary in this case.

Regards,
Jan

[Keshav Kini]

Jan Groenewald <j...@aims.ac.za> writes:
> Jeroen has ssh now, and one can setup key-based login.
> I'm not sure why a reverse tunnel is necessary in this case.

I don't know; it very well might not be necessary. Just a thought, if
you're behind NAT or for some other reason can't publicly expose an sshd
for Jeroen to connect to. It's what we're doing with arando.