Sage always crashes

[Pierre-Yves Bienvenu]

Hi, I'm trying to use Sage 7.3 on Ubuntu. I've downloaded the archive, used archive manager to extract it and got a directory SageMath. Inside I double click the  sage executable. The terminal opens and after a lot of lines starting with "patching" it says "SageMath version 7.3, release date..." etc but immediately after "Ooops sage crashed". No way to find the allegedly created report so I don't know exactly what's wrong. Any help would be greatly appreciated (I'm an ignorant I must say).

[leif]

They (by default) end up in a subfolder of the "hidden" Sage directory
(".sage/") in your home folder, i.e., in

$HOME/.sage/crash_logs/

or

$HOME/.sage/ipython*/

(There may be a couple of IPython folders, for different IPython
versions, but for Sage 7.3 it should be "ipython-4.2.1/"; probably
there's also "ipython_genutils-0.1.0/".)


But to be honest, I have no idea whether that's also immediately true
for the binary distributions during installation. Just look for
".sage/" in your home folder; you may have to enable "show hidden files"
or something like that when using the GUI.


-leif

[Thierry Dumont]

> --
>
I think you shoul not process like this.
Open a shell(terminal), go in the uncompresed directory and launch
./sage (do not click).
At least it will be cleaner. When "clicking", I am not sure the
environment is the same.

Yours
t.

[John Cremona]

It is not very user friendly to provide executables which do not execute!

 

John Cremona

Yours
t.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-support" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-support+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to sage-s...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-support.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Dima Pasechnik]

On Friday, September 2, 2016 at 8:31:55 AM UTC, John Cremona wrote:

On 2 September 2016 at 07:17, Thierry Dumont <tdu...@math.univ-lyon1.fr> wrote:

Le 01/09/2016 à 21:29, Pierre-Yves Bienvenu a écrit :
> Hi, I'm trying to use Sage 7.3 on Ubuntu. I've downloaded the archive,
> used archive manager to extract it and got a directory SageMath. Inside
> I double click the  sage executable. The terminal opens and after a lot
> of lines starting with "patching" it says "SageMath version 7.3, release
> date..." etc but immediately after "Ooops sage crashed". No way to find
> the allegedly created report so I don't know exactly what's wrong. Any
> help would be greatly appreciated (I'm an ignorant I must say).
>
> --
>
I think you shoul not process like this.
Open a shell(terminal), go in the uncompresed directory and launch
./sage (do not click).
At least it will be cleaner. When "clicking", I am not sure the
environment is the same.

It is not very user friendly to provide executables which do not execute!

that's executioners that execute, no?

 

 

John Cremona

Yours
t.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-support" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-support...@googlegroups.com.

[John Cremona]

Since I had never tried downloading and running a binary, I thought I would.  For a laptop running ubuntu 14.04 I looked at the UK mirror and found no 7.3 binary so I downloaded the 7.2 one (there was 7.3 for ubuntu 12.04 but not 14.04 or later).  Using the command-line I unpacked the tarball (tar jxf ...tar.bz2) which created a SageMath directory, so I cd'd into there and typed ./sage.  As the original poster reported, this resulted in a lot of "patching..." messages appearing, followed by the 7.2 banner and a sage: prompt.  Subsequent runs also worked without the patching stuff.

This does not help much, though I wonder how many of the posted binaries are tested?  And why is it neccessary to patch all those files?  If it really is necessary (and it might well be) then it would be more user-friendly for the function which is causing all that patching to be done to display a more user-friendly message, something like "I see that this is the first time you are running this copy of SageMath.  Please wait while some one-time configuration is carried out...." with the actual pacthing messages going to /dev/null or a log file.

John

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-support+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

[leif]

John Cremona wrote:
> Since I had never tried downloading and running a binary, I thought I
> would. For a laptop running ubuntu 14.04 I looked at the UK mirror and
> found no 7.3 binary so I downloaded the 7.2 one (there was 7.3 for
> ubuntu 12.04 but not 14.04 or later).

32-bit?!?!!!! (For Sage 7.3, there are 64-bit binaries for 12.04,
14.04, 15.10 and 16.04.)

As reported on sage-release, 32-bit (native) Ubuntu builds currently
don't work for any Ubuntu version > 12.04 because of issues with
-fstack-protector (which Ubuntu's GCCs by default enable). Nobody has
yet tracked this further down. (I planned to revive a 32-bit machine
for debugging/testing, but haven't yet had the time, but there doesn't
seem to be much demand either.)

> Using the command-line I unpacked
> the tarball (tar jxf ...tar.bz2) which created a SageMath directory, so
> I cd'd into there and typed ./sage. As the original poster reported,
> this resulted in a lot of "patching..." messages appearing, followed by
> the 7.2 banner and a sage: prompt. Subsequent runs also worked without
> the patching stuff.
>
> This does not help much, though I wonder how many of the posted binaries
> are tested? And why is it neccessary to patch all those files?

Because unfortunately people decided to break "relocating" Sage, which
still worked a while ago (modulo very few and minor issues perhaps).

So bdists are now made with some separate script / program from Volker,
such that they "patch" themselves upon installation / first attempt to
run 'sage'. Loads of (absolute) paths in scripts but also binaries and
libraries thereby get (again) hardcoded to the actual installation folder.


-leif

[John Cremona]

On 2 September 2016 at 16:36, leif <not.r...@online.de> wrote:

John Cremona wrote:
> Since I had never tried downloading and running a binary, I thought I
> would.  For a laptop running ubuntu 14.04 I looked at the UK mirror and
> found no 7.3 binary so I downloaded the 7.2 one (there was 7.3 for
> ubuntu 12.04 but not 14.04 or later).

32-bit?!?!!!!  (For Sage 7.3, there are 64-bit binaries for 12.04,
14.04, 15.10 and 16.04.)

Well yes (uname -m returns i686).  For some reason I did this experiment on a small and slow Toshiba netbook.

 

As reported on sage-release, 32-bit (native) Ubuntu builds currently
don't work for any Ubuntu version > 12.04 because of issues with
-fstack-protector (which Ubuntu's GCCs by default enable).  Nobody has
yet tracked this further down.  (I planned to revive a 32-bit machine
for debugging/testing, but haven't yet had the time, but there doesn't
seem to be much demand either.)

I had not realised this was such a can of worms.  I used to regularly build Sage on this machine (slowly, but then I do sleep) and last did so with 7.0.   I can do so again if there is call for it (and this conversation is better suited to sage-devel).

 

> Using the command-line I unpacked
> the tarball (tar jxf ...tar.bz2) which created a SageMath directory, so
> I cd'd into there and typed ./sage.  As the original poster reported,
> this resulted in a lot of "patching..." messages appearing, followed by
> the 7.2 banner and a sage: prompt.  Subsequent runs also worked without
> the patching stuff.
>
> This does not help much, though I wonder how many of the posted binaries
> are tested?  And why is it neccessary to patch all those files?

Because unfortunately people decided to break "relocating" Sage, which
still worked a while ago (modulo very few and minor issues perhaps).

So bdists are now made with some separate script / program from Volker,
such that they "patch" themselves upon installation / first attempt to
run 'sage'.  Loads of (absolute) paths in scripts but also binaries and
libraries thereby get (again) hardcoded to the actual installation folder.

I thought that would be the reason;  so it's Volker's script which could be made less frightening to the novice user.

 

John

-leif

> If it
> really is necessary (and it might well be) then it would be more
> user-friendly for the function which is causing all that patching to be
> done to display a more user-friendly message, something like "I see that
> this is the first time you are running this copy of SageMath.  Please
> wait while some one-time configuration is carried out...." with the
> actual pacthing messages going to /dev/null or a log file.
>
> John

[leif]

John Cremona wrote:
> On 2 September 2016 at 16:36, leif <not.r...@online.de

> <mailto:not.r...@online.de>> wrote:
>
> John Cremona wrote:
> > Since I had never tried downloading and running a binary, I thought I
> > would. For a laptop running ubuntu 14.04 I looked at the UK mirror and
> > found no 7.3 binary so I downloaded the 7.2 one (there was 7.3 for
> > ubuntu 12.04 but not 14.04 or later).
>
> 32-bit?!?!!!! (For Sage 7.3, there are 64-bit binaries for 12.04,
> 14.04, 15.10 and 16.04.)
>
>
> Well yes (uname -m returns i686). For some reason I did this experiment
> on a small and slow Toshiba netbook.
>
>
>
> As reported on sage-release, 32-bit (native) Ubuntu builds currently
> don't work for any Ubuntu version > 12.04 because of issues with
> -fstack-protector (which Ubuntu's GCCs by default enable). Nobody has
> yet tracked this further down. (I planned to revive a 32-bit machine
> for debugging/testing, but haven't yet had the time, but there doesn't
> seem to be much demand either.)
>
>
> I had not realised this was such a can of worms. I used to regularly
> build Sage on this machine (slowly, but then I do sleep) and last did so
> with 7.0. I can do so again if there is call for it (and this
> conversation is better suited to sage-devel).

Well, give for example Sage 7.3 a try. In case that works for you
(without setting SAGE_INSTALL_GCC=yes), you can create a bdist yourself
(see link below).

I guess my Pentium4 (though with just 2GB, and USB-2.0-attached external
disk only) would be a bit faster, but I'd have to repair the SFF power
supply, or rather replace its fan once again; it also at the moment has
Lucid and Precise only...)

> > Using the command-line I unpacked
> > the tarball (tar jxf ...tar.bz2) which created a SageMath directory, so
> > I cd'd into there and typed ./sage. As the original poster reported,
> > this resulted in a lot of "patching..." messages appearing, followed by
> > the 7.2 banner and a sage: prompt. Subsequent runs also worked without
> > the patching stuff.
> >
> > This does not help much, though I wonder how many of the posted binaries
> > are tested? And why is it neccessary to patch all those files?
>
> Because unfortunately people decided to break "relocating" Sage, which
> still worked a while ago (modulo very few and minor issues perhaps).
>
> So bdists are now made with some separate script / program from Volker,
> such that they "patch" themselves upon installation / first attempt to
> run 'sage'. Loads of (absolute) paths in scripts but also binaries and
> libraries thereby get (again) hardcoded to the actual installation
> folder.
>
> I thought that would be the reason; so it's Volker's script which could
> be made less frightening to the novice user.

https://github.com/sagemath/binary-pkg

You can create an issue or a pull request... ;-)


-leif

[leif]

P.S.: There's a horribly outdated README.txt (with still uppercase
SAGE, and among other flaws, telling one could move the Sage tree
anywhere): http://files.sagemath.org/linux/32bit/README.txt

I guess the ones in the other bdist subfolders aren't much better.

On the other hand, the web page itself (i.e., index.html) gives recent
info on uncompressing the various(?) formats offered. There we could
also add some short info on how to proceed after downloading.


More worms escaping the can... (I'd say Pandora's box though.)


-leif


P.P.S.: Just noticed in the mentioned description of compression
formats, there's "everything" but what we currently solely offer (namely
.tar.bz2, for whatever reason)... 8-)

Nearly the same for the linux/64bit/ folder, including README.txt (while
there's also some left-over beta rpm, and also an obsolete
sage-x.y.z-sage.math.washington.edu-x86_64-Linux.txt).

CC'ing Harald, as I'm not going to open an issue on GitHub. Maybe we
should also forward this to sage-devel, but with a more appropriate title.

[Dima Pasechnik]

Well, I already complained to Harald about another README there that  is hopelessly old too.

I'd like to propose putting all these files there on github.com/sagemath/mirrorfiles or something like that

and maintain them there.

[Harald Schilly]

Hi, I started https://github.com/sagemath/files and already added a
bit on the server, but stumbled over general idiocies. So, I don't
want to spend more time on this. E.g. there are symlinks, but git
doesn't like them, and there is something odd going on with an already
existing ssh key vs. github. Maybe with a little bit more nerves I am
able to do this. (unless I really need to bind-mount directories as
root, that might then be impossible for me)

-- h

[Dima Pasechnik]

I'd try the following:

* get a copy of the website locally

* make all the symlinks relative (is it OK?)

* check in all the non-binaries and symlinks

Are there any symlinks to binaries?

[Harald Schilly]

so, this might work, but how to update it later on? would a git pull
with your edits properly overwrite the files served on the master
mirror? Most of them are also autogenerated, at least partially, so
that's another aspect to think about, too.

-- h

[leif]

Harald Schilly wrote:
> so, this might work, but how to update it later on? would a git pull
> with your edits properly overwrite the files served on the master
> mirror? Most of them are also autogenerated, at least partially, so
> that's another aspect to think about, too.

Isn't it sufficient to just have all *scripts* and templates on GitHub,
rather than the generated content (and the actual files themselves that
get mirrored)?


-leif

[Dima Pasechnik]

On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 3:52 PM, Harald Schilly <harald....@gmail.com> wrote:
> so, this might work, but how to update it later on? would a git pull
> with your edits properly overwrite the files served on the master
> mirror? Most of them are also autogenerated, at least partially, so
> that's another aspect to think about, too.
>

obviously, autogenerated files should not be checked in the repo.
But for this one has to know how they are generated...