Hello, You pointed my parameters controlling the integration. However, the integration provide the "correct" values 712 times, and fails the 713th time, while the function to integrate is the same, but with a slight change in a numeric value which is not singular as much as I can see. I already checked my parameters, to optimize the accuracy of the integrations, as well as the required CPU time. >From that, I think that my set of parameters is OK. In my opinion, if one integration controlling parameter is incorrect, the gsl function must return an error (status) and not fails. That way I could really control the parameters, and investigate. Calculating thousands of integrations is not possible if the algorithm fails without options of monitoring what could be wrong. For FC34, I have been able to generate the gsl-2.7 (and devel) rpm packages. > Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2022 at 5:49 PM > From: "stan via users" <users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > To: users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Cc: "stan" <upaitag@xxxxxxxx> > Subject: Re: version of gsl > > On Tue, 9 Aug 2022 17:35:33 +0200 > Patrick Dupre <pdupre@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Hello, > > > > I tried to build gsl-2.7 for fc36. > > running rpmbuild -ba gsl-2.7-1-fc36.spec (from the tarball file), > > I get: > > [snip lots of warnings and errors] > > > RPM build warnings: > > Mixing main ELF and debug files in package > > RPM build errors: > > Installed (but unpackaged) file(s) found: > > /usr/lib64/libgsl.a > > /usr/lib64/libgsl.so > > /usr/lib64/libgsl.so.27 > > /usr/lib64/libgsl.so.27.0.0 > > /usr/lib64/libgslcblas.a > > /usr/lib64/libgslcblas.so > > /usr/lib64/libgslcblas.so.0 > > /usr/lib64/libgslcblas.so.0.0.0 > > /usr/lib64/pkgconfig/gsl.pc > > /usr/share/info/gsl-ref.info.gz > > > > > > Do you know how I could fix the issues? > > I don't, and wouldn't without a lot of study and more knowledge, if > then. The final errors should be fixed by adding them to the files > section of the spec file. But given all the warnings above, I suspect > that even if they installed, there would be major issues. > > I think you found out why the package has not been updated to the > latest version in Fedora. > > As George said in response to your other post about this, it is > unlikely this is a program error, and is more likely that you are > passing inconsistent parameters to the routine. Investigating that > will probably be a more fruitful use of your time. > _______________________________________________ > users mailing list -- users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > To unsubscribe send an email to users-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ > List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines > List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue > _______________________________________________ users mailing list -- users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to users-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
