package pypolymake

[mkoeppe]

• development at https://gitlab.com/videlec/pypolymake

• (old) tarballs at https://github.com/videlec/pypolymake/releases

• PyPI page at https://pypi.python.org/pypi/pypolymake/

• https://gitlab.com/videlec/pypolymake/-/merge_requests/1

See also: #22710: Meta-ticket: polymake

CC: @videlec @dimpase @mkoeppe @fchapoton @kcrisman @tscrim @simon-king-jena @kliem

Component: packages: experimental

Author: Matthias Koeppe

Branch/Commit: u/mkoeppe/pypolymake @ 565d6de

Issue created by migration from https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/21170

[mkoeppe]

Branch: u/mkoeppe/pypolymake

[mkoeppe]

Note, the package currently is a "script" package whose spkg-install calls "pip".
Can't make it a "pip" package at the moment because some environment variables need to be set.

---

Last 10 new commits:

84492b1	polymake build: disable fink
ef11a12	Merge tag '7.3.beta9' into t/20892/20892
dbc5d60	Use --without-fink only on Mac OS X
6156bb9	pypolymake package
8923490	Update polymake to 3.0r2
60caf7a	Handle errors. Remove old installation before installing
7d1fd0a	Run polymake --reconfigure
91fe2d5	Fixup "-arch" flags on Mac OS X. Increase verbosity
3310092	Remove pypolymake package for now
e6b22d3	Revert "Remove pypolymake package for now"

[mkoeppe]

Commit: e6b22d3

[mkoeppe]

comment:3

Branch is on top of #20892.

[videlec]

Description changed:

--- 
+++ 
@@ -1 +1,3 @@
-pypolymake under development at https://github.com/videlec/pypolymake
+- development at https://github.com/videlec/pypolymake
+- tarballs at https://github.com/videlec/pypolymake/releases
+- PyPI page at https://pypi.python.org/pypi/pypolymake/

[sagetrac-git]

Changed commit from e6b22d3 to 77014a1

[sagetrac-git]

Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. Last 10 new commits:

8798d7d	Merge tag '7.3' into t/20892/20892
3837a48	bliss: Use autotoolized package from Debian
225755e	bliss: Add more info in SPKG.txt
4b22211	bliss: Use upstream tarball and patches
3111091	Merge tag '7.3.beta9' into t/20901/upgrade_bliss_package_to_0_73_with_debian_patches__install_header_files_in_location_expected_by_polymake
1c398a3	Merge tag '7.3.rc0' into t/20901/upgrade_bliss_package_to_0_73_with_debian_patches__install_header_files_in_location_expected_by_polymake
1d2707c	Use repackaged archive instead of huge patch
c0c0427	Adjust to changed bliss header file locations
7b096fd	Merge branch 't/20901/upgrade_bliss_package_to_0_73_with_debian_patches__install_header_files_in_location_expected_by_polymake' into t/20892/20892
77014a1	Merge branch 't/20892/20892' into t/21170/pypolymake

[sagetrac-git]

Changed commit from 77014a1 to b699fb7

[sagetrac-git]

Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:

b699fb7

Merge tag '7.4.beta1' into t/21170/pypolymake

[sagetrac-git]

Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:

069cfb7	Merge tag '7.4.beta3' into t/21170/pypolymake
dfa9b01	Remove Darwin arch flags hack

[sagetrac-git]

Changed commit from b699fb7 to dfa9b01

[simon-king-jena]

comment:10

What is the status? Should it be reviewed? Does it need work?

[videlec]

comment:11

I am not happy with pypolymake (which is in beta version)... I am hoping to get something reasonable at sage days 84.

You can already install it in sage through PyPI

$ sage -pip install pypolymake

and even the development version with

$ sage -pip install git+https://github.com/videlec/pypolymake.git

(it does not work for everybody, including me right now)

[simon-king-jena]

comment:12

Replying to @videlec:

I am hoping to get something reasonable at sage days 84.

I thought so...

BTW, I'll try to create a pexpect interface to polymake, see #22452. I guess having Python bindings and a pexpect interface at the same time (similar to having libsingular and the Singular pexpect interface) would be a good argument for making Polymake a standard package.

[videlec]

comment:13

Replying to @simon-king-jena:

Replying to @videlec:

I am hoping to get something reasonable at sage days 84.

I thought so...

BTW, I'll try to create a pexpect interface to polymake, see #22452. I guess having Python bindings and a pexpect interface at the same time (similar to having libsingular and the Singular pexpect interface) would be a good argument for making Polymake a standard package.

To my mind, polymake is too fragile (and too big) to become standard, or even optional.