On Thu, 25 Aug 2022 at 18:34, Ralf Corsépius <rc040203@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Am 25.08.22 um 13:19 schrieb Iñaki Ucar: > > > I assume their maintainers didn't do it on purpose, maybe it was > > easier for a certain update, didn't have time to look into it and > > weren't aware of the guideline. But this is very frustrating. Seeing > > many hours of work just wiped out without any notice or explanation is > > very frustrating. > > In my case (freefem++), it was actually was a mixture of all. > > To cut a long story short: This flexblas stuff doesn't "harmonize well" > with freefem++, rsp. more bluntly speaking, flexblas breaks freefem++. > > Because of this, when going after freefem++'s regressions, years after > the flexiblas changes had been introduced, I inadvertedly and > accidentally reverted the flexblas related changes, because these > apparently do not work out with freefem++. How exactly does flexiblas break freefem++? I see v4.10 was built just fine. Then v4.11 reverted to openblas. If it works with openblas, I see no reason to break with flexiblas, among other things because openblas is the default backend. Moreover, arpack, superlu, suitesparse and other BuildRequires link against flexiblas. -- Iñaki Úcar _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-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/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
