On Fri, 26 Aug 2022 at 00:44, Ralf Corsépius rc040203@freenet.de wrote:
Am 25.08.22 um 23:00 schrieb Iñaki Ucar:
On Thu, 25 Aug 2022 at 19:15, Iñaki Ucar iucar@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Thu, 25 Aug 2022 at 18:34, Ralf Corsépius rc040203@freenet.de 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.