fix symmetrica for xcode 12

[dimpase]

CC: @mkoeppe @jhpalmieri @orlitzky

Component: packages: standard

Author: Dima Pasechnik

Branch/Commit: u/dimpase/packages/symmetrica/xcode12fix @ dfa4ab4

Reviewer: John Palmieri

Issue created by migration from https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/30608

[dimpase]

Branch: u/dimpase/packages/symmetrica/xcode12fix

[dimpase]

Commit: dfa4ab4

[dimpase]

New commits:

dfa4ab4

xcode12 fixes for symmetrica

[dimpase]

comment:2

this builds.

[dimpase]

comment:3

spkg.rst should be updated - some links are broken.

[jhpalmieri]

comment:4

I just saw one broken link. Should I push this change?

diff --git a/build/pkgs/symmetrica/SPKG.rst b/build/pkgs/symmetrica/SPKG.rst
index bd82eda45f..3d0213ddba 100644
--- a/build/pkgs/symmetrica/SPKG.rst
+++ b/build/pkgs/symmetrica/SPKG.rst
@@ -18,8 +18,8 @@ University of Bayreuth. It has routines to handle the following topics
 -  operations of finite groups.
 -  ordinary representation theory of Hecke algebras of type A_n
 
-For more details check http://www.symmetrica.de (currently redirects to
-http://www.algorithm.uni-bayreuth.de/en/research/SYMMETRICA)
+For more details check
+http://www.algorithm.uni-bayreuth.de/en/research/SYMMETRICA.
 
 License
 -------

[mkoeppe]

comment:5

See also: #29061 Upgrade to symmetrica-3.0.1

[orlitzky]

comment:6

Just upgrade it, our forked upstream version is far ahead. I'd like to make a 3.0.2 release sometime soon with the pkg-config file, too. Additional brain power (and maybe German language skills) would be helpful on https://gitlab.com/sagemath/symmetrica/-/merge_requests/3 which is the only remaining item that I have no idea what to do with.

[jhpalmieri]

comment:7

Replying to @orlitzky:

Just upgrade it, our forked upstream version is far ahead.

Please prepare a branch at #29061 for us to test.

[dimpase]

comment:8

Replying to @jhpalmieri:

Replying to @orlitzky:

Just upgrade it, our forked upstream version is far ahead.

Please prepare a branch at #29061 for us to test.

I've posted a branch on #29061
it looks more attractive than this one, for sure.

[jhpalmieri]

comment:9

We should use either this one or #29061, but not both. (For example, I think that #29061 merges cleanly on top of this one, but then the patch here does not apply to the 3.0.1 tarball.) Both are marked as blockers. Which route should we take? My preference would be: if we can test #29061 on a lot of platforms quickly, we do that. If we can't, then let's use this one now and #29061 in the next release.

[dimpase]

comment:10

let's go with #29061 then, OK?

[jhpalmieri]

comment:11

Okay with me.

[jhpalmieri]

comment:12

But I'm not going to mark this as positive review until that one is ready. No need to close this one yet.

[mkoeppe]

Changed author from Dima Pasechnik to none

[mkoeppe]

Reviewer: John Palmieri

[dimpase]

Author: Dima Pasechnik

[dimpase]

comment:15

as #29061 is ready, this one can get a positive review IMHO.

[jhpalmieri]

comment:16

Okay, we can always return to it if we absolutely need to.