* Package name : lean Version : 3.2.0 Upstream Author : Leonardo de Moura <leonardo@microsoft.com> et al. * URL : https://leanprover.github.io/ * License : Apache-2.0 Programming Lang: C++ Description : theorem prover from Microsoft Research Lean is a theorem prover or interactive proof assistant. That is, it’s a system in which you can write formal mathematical proofs that are checked for correctness by the computer. Lean is thus broadly similar to Coq, but the Lean developers hope to build a faster, more extensible system than Coq is today. From the About page: “Lean is a new open source theorem prover being developed at Microsoft Research, and its standard library at Carnegie Mellon University. Lean aims to bridge the gap between interactive and automated theorem proving by situating automated tools and methods in a framework that supports user interaction and the construction of fully specified axiomatic proofs. The goal is to support both mathematical reasoning and reasoning about complex systems, and to verify claims in both domains.” Lean has been under development for several years; regular releases first appeared in January. I use Lean, and I know other Debian users would like to have it easily accessible.
I don't think we need the company advertisement here, though. This looks good so far for the package description, not sure about the rest though: Sounds weird, how can a standard libary develop something? Seems like this is not a good fit for the package description, and the quote might have licensing issues.
Maybe. MSR is a well-known name in the programming languages and formal verification communities, and the fact that they’re behind Lean is something that many potential users would want to know. That said, I’m not terribly attached to this description, and I’d feel comfortable just saying “interactive theorem prover”. Ha. I agree that it’s not the best-written description. I’d probably rephrase it as “Lean is a theorem prover developed at Microsoft Research and Carnegie Mellon University.” I assume you’re specifically referring to this paragraph, in which case, you’re completely right. I was responding to the reportbug prompt to explain why I think Lean ought to be packaged. I don’t intend to include this praagraph in the description. We should be in the clear here, since the Lean web site is licensed under Expat. The quote in question appears in Git at https://github.com/leanprover/leanprover.github.io/blob/master/about/index.md, if you’re interested.
Hi Benjamin, please consider the option of maintaining this package under the roof of the Debian Science Team. Best regards Anton Am Mittwoch, 28. Juni 2017 schrieb Benjamin Barenblat :
Hi Benjamin,
Thanks for this ITP.
I'd suggest to package this in Debian Science team.
Kind regards
Andreas.
I've just started looking at lean. One of the issues around packaging it is that different lean "scripts" (not sure the correct word here) require different versions of lean. There is a script available which downloads the required version of lean for any particular script, and so keeps a local set of lean versions. If we were to package lean for Debian, what exactly would we package? The current stable version, or a script such as this? See https://github.com/leanprover-community/mathlib/blob/master/docs/install/debian_details.md for a little more on this. Thoughts would be appreciated! Best wishes, Julian
Lean is now the theorem prover with the largest community, so it would be nice to have it in Debian. However I do not know how usable it is outside the visual studio IDE. Cheers,
If you want to direct the conversation onto a mailing list, please use debian-math@ instead (CC'ed) as lean is a math based packages
Debian now has the package "elan" which handles installation of Lean; this might be sufficient. Best wishes, Julian
Thanks for the tip, I did not know about elan. However installing software this way really put me off, and it does not seem to install matlib. Then I found <https://leanprover-community.github.io/install/debian.html> (which is 'wget | bash + pip install' variant). So I feel the RFP to be appropriate, even though probably overwhelming. Cheers,