The policies specifying use of FlexiBLAS[1] are full of MUSTs; you can’t just opt out and reject all prospective PRs out of hand. If someone can get the package working with FlexiBLAS, you should accept a PR. If you think freefem++ needs to be exempt from the requirement, you should open an FPC ticket[2] explaining why and requesting an explicit exception. [1] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/BLAS_LAPACK/#_packaging_blaslapack_dependent_packages [2] https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issues On Thu, Aug 25, 2022, at 6:36 PM, Ralf Corsépius 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). > > flexiblas causes freefem's configure script to produce bogus results. > > > 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. > > _______________________________________________ > 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 _______________________________________________ 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
