Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Add TIDES as optional package. #16578

Closed
miguelmarco opened this issue Jun 28, 2014 · 23 comments
Closed

Add TIDES as optional package. #16578

miguelmarco opened this issue Jun 28, 2014 · 23 comments

Comments

@miguelmarco
Copy link
Contributor

TIDES (http://gme.unizar.es/software/tides) is a library that allows numerical integration of differential equations with arbitrary precission. It is usually more robust than the usual Runge-Kuta methods.

The usual workflow with this library is to write two .c files that deppend on your particular IVP, and compile them linking against this library. The resulting binary produces the desired ouput (the points of the orbit).

The authors of the library provide a Mathematica package that can produce this two files from the symbolic expression of the differential equation. Together with one of the authors, we have writen a Sage replacement for that functionality, bat that will be part of another ticket.

This one is just about the inclusion as an optional package.

The tarball with the library can be downloaded from https://raw.githubusercontent.com/miguelmarco/TIDES/master/tides-2.0.tar.gz

(The authors send it on request, but it is GPL3, so there is no problem in distributing it).

Component: packages: optional

Keywords: sd59

Author: Miguel Marco

Branch/Commit: a64dbbe

Reviewer: Vincent Delecroix

Issue created by migration from https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/16578

@miguelmarco
Copy link
Contributor Author

Branch: u/mmarco/ticket/16578

@sagetrac-git
Copy link
Mannequin

sagetrac-git mannequin commented Jun 28, 2014

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

1284345Added newlines at the end of files

@sagetrac-git
Copy link
Mannequin

sagetrac-git mannequin commented Jun 28, 2014

Commit: 1284345

@miguelmarco
Copy link
Contributor Author

Changed keywords from none to sd59

@videlec
Copy link
Contributor

videlec commented Jun 28, 2014

comment:5

Hi Miguel,

These are not very useful as debug information

"Error configuring PACKAGE_NAME."
"Error building PACKAGE_NAME."
"Error installing PACKAGE_NAME."

And it compiles without any trouble on my computer.

Vincent

@sagetrac-git
Copy link
Mannequin

sagetrac-git mannequin commented Jun 28, 2014

Changed commit from 1284345 to efdc1fc

@sagetrac-git
Copy link
Mannequin

sagetrac-git mannequin commented Jun 28, 2014

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

efdc1fcAdded package names in spkg-install

@miguelmarco
Copy link
Contributor Author

comment:7

Thanks for pointing it out, solved.

@videlec
Copy link
Contributor

videlec commented Jun 28, 2014

comment:8

Great!

I guess one might want to test the compilation on other architecture (mine is a linux, 64 bits)...

Do you know if the webpage of packages gets automatically updated?

Vincent

@miguelmarco
Copy link
Contributor Author

comment:9

I don't really know how that works. I guess there should be some voting, or at least some process of decisison (and the tarball should be put in some sage server for download, i guess)

@vbraun
Copy link
Member

vbraun commented Jun 29, 2014

comment:10

For the record, GPLv3 only sucks as a license. What if the author disappears, and then a new version of the GPL comes out? Optional package is OK, though. If you know the author it might be good to get him to license it as GPLvN+ for some value of N. But without the "or later" there is bound to be trouble later.

@vbraun
Copy link
Member

vbraun commented Jun 29, 2014

comment:11

Also, reviewer name

@miguelmarco
Copy link
Contributor Author

comment:12

I have already talked to one of the auhors about that, but he still has to discuss it with the others. I don't think they would have any trouble licensing it under GPLv2+, but we have to wait for their answer.

@vbraun
Copy link
Member

vbraun commented Jun 29, 2014

comment:13

GPLv3+ would be fine, too---Sage already depends on a number of v3+ packgages.

@sagetrac-git
Copy link
Mannequin

sagetrac-git mannequin commented Jun 29, 2014

Changed commit from efdc1fc to 83de5c3

@sagetrac-git
Copy link
Mannequin

sagetrac-git mannequin commented Jun 29, 2014

Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1 and set ticket back to needs_review. New commits:

83de5c3Corrected license

@miguelmarco
Copy link
Contributor Author

comment:15

Ups, turns out i was wrong. The source files in the library state it is GPLv3+


New commits:

83de5c3Corrected license

@vbraun
Copy link
Member

vbraun commented Jun 29, 2014

comment:16

still needs reviewer name

@miguelmarco
Copy link
Contributor Author

Reviewer: Vincent Delecroix

@sagetrac-git
Copy link
Mannequin

sagetrac-git mannequin commented Jul 4, 2014

Changed commit from 83de5c3 to a64dbbe

@sagetrac-git
Copy link
Mannequin

sagetrac-git mannequin commented Jul 4, 2014

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

a64dbbeAdded a patch to solve some problems with inverse function and temp file names

@miguelmarco
Copy link
Contributor Author

comment:19

The testers upstream pointed me a bug in the library. They don't plan to release a new version in the near future, so i include the patch. The patch also solves a problem that could strike in systems where temp files are given long names (longer than 20 letters for the full path).

@vbraun
Copy link
Member

vbraun commented Jul 8, 2014

Changed branch from u/mmarco/ticket/16578 to a64dbbe

@vbraun vbraun closed this as completed in c24455c Jul 8, 2014
This was referenced Oct 19, 2014
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants