On 8/14/10 3:22 PM, Leo Butler wrote:
>
> On Sat, 14 Aug 2010, Raymond Toy wrote:
>
> < On 8/14/10 3:53 AM, Leo Butler wrote:
> < >
> < > On Fri, 13 Aug 2010, Raymond Toy wrote:
> < >
> < > < On 8/13/10 4:51 PM, Leo Butler wrote:
> < > < > After building 5.22.1 with cmucl 19d, I've
> < > < > got the following errors:
> < > < Perhaps these are bugs in 19d. Cmucl 2010-08 gives no errors in the
> < > < testsuite.
> < > < >
> < > < >
> < > < > Error found in
> < > < > /knoppix-home/work/maxima/sandbox/maxima-5.22.1/tests/rtest4.mac,
> < > < > problem:
> < > < > (86)
> < > < According to the logs, this test was added in Dec 2007. This might be
> < > < an issue with that version of cmucl. IIRC, maxima sometimes computes
> < > < 1^N for very large N. Cmucl would warn about raising a number to a
> < > < large N. At some point cmucl added a test so that 1^N doesn't produce
> < > < that warning, since, obviously, it's not a problem for any N.
> < >
> < > The issue here is that the CMUCL from the Ubuntu repositories has a
> < > ridiculously low maximum exponent:
> < >
> < > (%i1) is(errcatch(rat(x^2^128)) = []);
> < Yes, you can make it larger. But that just moves the problem out. If
> < this must be solved by maxima, then maxima should handle the case of 1^N
> < itself, or maxima should include the code from cmucl that fixes it there.
> <
> < Or better yet, upgrade to a newer version of cmucl. :-) Getting and
> < installing the official binaries from common-lisp.net is not hard.
> < Just untar somewhere.
>
> Sorry, Ray, but until recently cmucl 19d was the current version in the debian testing
> repositories. And 19d is the version in the stable repositories.
Too bad. I knew the person that used to do the debian package. I do
know the Gentoo person and he keeps it pretty up-to-date. Of course,
newer doesn't mean better; it just means different. :-)
> The point of using a repository and package management is
> to make the infrastructural work as painless as possible. It's a pain
> in the ass to update tar files gotten from thither and yon. I'll end
> up recreating, in a half-assed way, another package management system...
Depends on how many packages you want. On my Linux box, I only build
clisp, ecl, cmucl, and maxima, just to keep up-to-date. Everything else
I take from the package repos.
>
> The test results I reported were from a crunchbang (ubuntu) installation. I
> built the release on debian lenny and all the errors disappeared except
> for the one reported earlier involving zeta. I am led to believe that
> the extra errors are down to some anomaly in the way ubuntu is
> re-packaging the debian cmucl package. If you have any ideas, I am happy
> to test them and file a bug report against the package.
>
I don't have any further ideas on this. I don't understand how
repackaging could make that much of a difference, unless they apply
patches to the code.
Ray