On Fri, 26 Aug 2022 at 00:44, Ralf Corsépius <rc040203@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Am 25.08.22 um 23:00 schrieb Iñaki Ucar: > > On Thu, 25 Aug 2022 at 19:15, Iñaki Ucar <iucar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >> 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. > > > > In fact, freefem++ was one of the easiest packages to adapt: you just > > set the library, and it does nothing fancy nor too-clever to try to > > discover anything. > Then you haven't looked into details (build.log rsp. config.status). Could you please describe the issues? > flexiblas causes freefem's configure script to produce bogus results. If you are referring to this line configure: -- NO ARPACK -- enable_download : no , wget: yes then I have good news. I think we can agree that the configure script is a mess. It just needed a simple fix to make that test successful, namely, to substitute -llapack with -lflexiblas. Please take a look at https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=91264332. I see no differences in the list of "configure: ++ <library>" that the script produces > Here's a simple patch [1] and a successful scratch > > build [2], with all checks passing. Please let me know if I'm missing > > anything, but otherwise, I'll open a PR. > Please don't and also abstain from submitting pull requests. I'm sorry, I'm trying to help here. But it's difficult if I don't know the specific trouble you run into. -- 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
