[Bug 214967] New: Review Request: arpack - Fortran77 subroutines for solving large scale eigenvalue problems
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=214967
Summary: Review Request: arpack - Fortran77 subroutines for solving large scale eigenvalue problems Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: Axel.Thimm@ATrpms.net QAContact: fedora-package-review@redhat.com
Spec URL: http://dl.atrpms.net/all/arpack.spec SRPM URL: http://dl.atrpms.net/all/arpack-2.1-5.at.src.rpm Description: ARPACK is a collection of Fortran77 subroutines designed to solve large scale eigenvalue problems.
The package is designed to compute a few eigenvalues and corresponding eigenvectors of a general n by n matrix A. It is most appropriate for large sparse or structured matrices A where structured means that a matrix-vector product w <- Av requires order n rather than the usual order n**2 floating point operations. This software is based upon an algorithmic variant of the Arnoldi process called the Implicitly Restarted Arnoldi Method (IRAM).
============================================================================
rpmlint gives
W: arpack invalid-license Freely distributable W: arpack no-documentation W: arpack-devel invalid-license Freely distributable
documentation is in the devel package, and the license is a BSD derived one (so maybe BSD-like would be more appropriate).
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: arpack - Fortran77 subroutines for solving large scale eigenvalue problems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=214967
Axel.Thimm@ATrpms.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |qspencer@ieee.org
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: arpack - Fortran77 subroutines for solving large scale eigenvalue problems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=214967
pertusus@free.fr changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |pertusus@free.fr
------- Additional Comments From pertusus@free.fr 2006-11-10 06:30 EST ------- I fear this is not possible to include in fedora due to the licensing.
As a first remark it is not BSD-like, since there is this clause (which is acceptable): * If you modify the source for these routines we ask that you change the name of the routine and comment the changes made to the original.
And then there is those clauses which seem to be unacceptable to me:
* Written notification is provided to the developers of intent to use this software.
This is a restriction on use which seems to strong to me for that software to be OSI-compliant.
* Also, we ask that use of ARPACK is properly cited in any resulting publications or software documentation.
Depending on what exactly 'ask' means (is it an option, or is it an obligation?) it may also be a restriction on use which is too strong to reach OSI-compliance.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: arpack - Fortran77 subroutines for solving large scale eigenvalue problems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=214967
rdieter@math.unl.edu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |rdieter@math.unl.edu
------- Additional Comments From rdieter@math.unl.edu 2006-11-10 09:20 EST ------- Patrice's concerns appear valid, though imo the only problematic licensing statement is the bit about "Written notification is provided to the developers...". That's one of the more poorly worded and silly license requirements I've seen in awhile.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: arpack - Fortran77 subroutines for solving large scale eigenvalue problems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=214967
------- Additional Comments From qspencer@ieee.org 2006-11-10 09:55 EST ------- For what it's worth, arpack is in Debian, and binaries are distributed by the MathWorks in MATLAB, so either everyone else has "notified the authors" or they are just ignoring this.
Technically, this does not place any burden on Fedora or any repackager of Fedora, but on the end user. Realistically, it will be ignored by users of Fedora as I'm sure it has been by virtually every other user.
I was going to try contacting the authors, but I thought I would make sure nobody else here has or intends to so that they don't get multiple identical requests about the same thing.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: arpack - Fortran77 subroutines for solving large scale eigenvalue problems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=214967
------- Additional Comments From pertusus@free.fr 2006-11-10 10:04 EST ------- (In reply to comment #3)
For what it's worth, arpack is in Debian, and binaries are distributed by the MathWorks in MATLAB, so either everyone else has "notified the authors" or they are just ignoring this.
You should also contact the debian people, their copyright at http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/a/arpack/arpack_2.1-8/copyri... state that it is public domain...
Technically, this does not place any burden on Fedora or any repackager of Fedora, but on the end user. Realistically, it will be ignored by users of Fedora as I'm sure it has been by virtually every other user.
It doesn't matter, it is not OSI-compliant. Users ignoring the clause don't have the right to use it.
I think it is the same for * Also, we ask that use of ARPACK is properly cited in any resulting publications or software documentation.
except if 'ask' isn't a requirement. But is it sure that it isn't a requirement?
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: arpack - Fortran77 subroutines for solving large scale eigenvalue problems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=214967
------- Additional Comments From Axel.Thimm@ATrpms.net 2006-11-10 10:41 EST ------- (In reply to comment #3)
I was going to try contacting the authors, but I thought I would make sure nobody else here has or intends to so that they don't get multiple identical requests about the same thing.
That was my next idea, too, after reading Patrice's (valid) remarks. Can you put me into the Cc:? Thanks!
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: arpack - Fortran77 subroutines for solving large scale eigenvalue problems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=214967
orion@cora.nwra.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |orion@cora.nwra.com OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis| |
------- Additional Comments From orion@cora.nwra.com 2006-11-16 15:21 EST ------- Changing blocker to FE-REVIEW since it seems to be under review.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: arpack - Fortran77 subroutines for solving large scale eigenvalue problems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=214967
rpm@greysector.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |rpm@greysector.net
------- Additional Comments From rpm@greysector.net 2006-11-16 21:22 EST ------- I seem to remember building arpack privately for some other software. I'm interested in seeing this in Extras, too. If Quentin doesn't have the time to review this, I can do it in a few days.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: arpack - Fortran77 subroutines for solving large scale eigenvalue problems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=214967
------- Additional Comments From qspencer@ieee.org 2006-11-16 21:51 EST ------- The main thing stopping the review at this point is clarification about the odd licensing terms. I sent an e-mail to the "official" arpack address last week asking for clarification and have received no response. I found an e-mail for one of the authors and tried to contact him directly today. I think I'll try to track down the others as well.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: arpack - Fortran77 subroutines for solving large scale eigenvalue problems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=214967
------- Additional Comments From rpm@greysector.net 2006-11-22 17:24 EST ------- I forgot about this and submitted this package for review in #bug 216916 myself, sorry. Axel, would you consider letting me maintain this or at least co-maintain?
Here's a patch to fix undefined-non-weak-symbols rpmlint warning.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: arpack - Fortran77 subroutines for solving large scale eigenvalue problems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=214967
------- Additional Comments From rpm@greysector.net 2006-11-22 17:26 EST ------- Created an attachment (id=141957) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=141957&action=vie...) Fix undefined-non-weak-symbols rpmlint warning and add license text to the package.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: arpack - Fortran77 subroutines for solving large scale eigenvalue problems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=214967
------- Additional Comments From rpm@greysector.net 2006-11-22 17:27 EST ------- *** Bug 216916 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: arpack - Fortran77 subroutines for solving large scale eigenvalue problems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=214967
------- Additional Comments From Axel.Thimm@ATrpms.net 2006-11-22 18:59 EST ------- Thanks for the lapack patch and of course for the troublesome license inclusion, I'll bump the release tag and add a changelog entry like
%changelog * Thu Nov 23 2006 Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski <hidden-for-bugzilla-scrapers> - 2.1-5 - Fix missing lapack dependencies. - Add RiceBSD license text.
No problem with comaintaining. Let's hope that packages makes it through the license barrier, e.g. the authors grant a different license than the current one (thanks to Quentin for picking this up).
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: arpack - Fortran77 subroutines for solving large scale eigenvalue problems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=214967
------- Additional Comments From rpm@greysector.net 2006-11-22 19:14 EST ------- Let's hope so! :)
Another thing worth mentioning: I actually built arpack against atlas-devel, which provides an alternative lapack implementation, but since it doesn't provide lapack-devel, I decided to stick to lapack-devel. The user can replace lapack with atlas at install time. In fact, I wonder what yum will pick to satisfy lapack.so.3 dependency...
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: arpack - Fortran77 subroutines for solving large scale eigenvalue problems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=214967
------- Additional Comments From dbateman@free.fr 2007-02-15 07:54 EST ------- Created an attachment (id=148107) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=148107&action=vie...) Clarification of ARPACK license by author
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: arpack - Fortran77 subroutines for solving large scale eigenvalue problems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=214967
------- Additional Comments From dbateman@free.fr 2007-02-15 07:57 EST ------- (From update of attachment 148107) I phoned Danny Sorensen to try and get clarification for this. He stated that it was the lawyers at RICE that required him to have the license, and so he hesitated to change the license due to the need to involve the RICE lawyers in the loop. He was however willing to clarify the statement
<quote> Written notification is provided to the developers of intent to use this software. Also, we ask that use of ARPACK is properly cited in any resulting publications or software documentation. </quote>
and how it applies to Fedora. The clarification is in the attached e-mail above from Danny. Essentially, he is not asking that Fedora or their users inform him of the use of ARPACK. However, he is requesting that the "eigs" function that uses ARPACK cites it. This is in fact the case, however, I take this statement a bit further in meaning that code that links to ARPACK muct mention ARPACK in its documentation
Is this an acceptable clarification? If not what is needed to further clarify this point?
Regards David
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: arpack - Fortran77 subroutines for solving large scale eigenvalue problems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=214967
Axel.Thimm@ATrpms.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO| |182235 nThis| |
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: arpack - Fortran77 subroutines for solving large scale eigenvalue problems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=214967
Axel.Thimm@ATrpms.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |tcallawa@redhat.com
------- Additional Comments From Axel.Thimm@ATrpms.net 2007-02-15 09:47 EST ------- Thanks David for contacting the author over phone!
In my understanding this is still an advertizing style clause. I'm escalating this to FE-Legal and asked spot about this, who is the license wizzard around here.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: arpack - Fortran77 subroutines for solving large scale eigenvalue problems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=214967
------- Additional Comments From dbateman@free.fr 2007-03-04 16:58 EST ------- Is there any progress on FE-Legal's side on the above statement from Sorensen? He seemed quite willing to help out and it was just the amount of time it would take him to negotiate with his universities lawyers that worried him. If I can have a clarification of exactly what clarifying statement you'd need from him to resolve this issue, I'm willing to recontact him.
D.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: arpack - Fortran77 subroutines for solving large scale eigenvalue problems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=214967
rpm@greysector.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO| |233975 nThis| |
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: arpack - Fortran77 subroutines for solving large scale eigenvalue problems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=214967
tcallawa@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO|182235 | nThis| |
------- Additional Comments From tcallawa@redhat.com 2007-03-26 11:07 EST ------- Include the clarification attachment in the package as %doc, and we're good.
This is really unenforceable anyways, as it amounts to a "please do this" as opposed to a "you must do this".
Lifting FE-Legal
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: arpack - Fortran77 subroutines for solving large scale eigenvalue problems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=214967
bugzilla@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Severity|normal |medium
------- Additional Comments From dbateman@free.fr 2007-03-27 06:07 EST ------- Hi Tom,
This is great news. I hope Axel or Quentin are now able to package ARPACK for Extras..
Cheers David
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: arpack - Fortran77 subroutines for solving large scale eigenvalue problems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=214967
------- Additional Comments From qspencer@ieee.org 2007-03-27 09:46 EST ------- (In reply to comment #18)
Include the clarification attachment in the package as %doc, and we're good.
This is really unenforceable anyways, as it amounts to a "please do this" as opposed to a "you must do this".
Lifting FE-Legal
Because it was unclear whether this license could be regarded as GPL compatible, the primary author of octave has not included some code that links to arpack. In separate discussions with him, he has asked whether there is any other discussion or reasoning behind the decision to accept this license now after it was originally considered problematic.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: arpack - Fortran77 subroutines for solving large scale eigenvalue problems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=214967
------- Additional Comments From tcallawa@redhat.com 2007-03-27 10:05 EST ------- (In reply to comment #20)
Because it was unclear whether this license could be regarded as GPL compatible, the primary author of octave has not included some code that links to arpack. In separate discussions with him, he has asked whether there is any other discussion or reasoning behind the decision to accept this license now after it was originally considered problematic.
I didn't say that it was GPL compatible. We can ask the FSF if we want that ruling. The delay on the decision was entirely due to the fact that I hadn't yet looked at it (until yesterday).
If I had to guess, I would say it's not GPL compatible, due to the advertising clauses.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: arpack - Fortran77 subroutines for solving large scale eigenvalue problems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=214967
------- Additional Comments From qspencer@ieee.org 2007-03-27 11:44 EST ------- (In reply to comment #21)
I didn't say that it was GPL compatible. We can ask the FSF if we want that ruling. The delay on the decision was entirely due to the fact that I hadn't yet looked at it (until yesterday).
If I had to guess, I would say it's not GPL compatible, due to the advertising clauses.
Well, I guess that's what I (and octave's author) don't understand. While the advertising clause is apparently non-binding and likely unenforceable, it does appear to make it technically incompatible with the GPL. That makes it impossible for octave, a GPL program, to link to it. So, we can include this in Fedora, but other Fedora programs can't link to it? My interest in getting arpack into Fedora was for the benefit of octave. Maybe this should be taken up with the FSF.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: arpack - Fortran77 subroutines for solving large scale eigenvalue problems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=214967
tcallawa@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO| |182235 nThis| |
------- Additional Comments From tcallawa@redhat.com 2007-03-27 11:47 EST ------- Opened a license request with the FSF. Putting this back on FE-Legal.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: arpack - Fortran77 subroutines for solving large scale eigenvalue problems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=214967
Axel.Thimm@ATrpms.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO|182235 | nThis| |
------- Additional Comments From Axel.Thimm@ATrpms.net 2007-03-27 13:07 EST ------- Since the GPL compatibility is not a blocker for reviewing this package I created a new bug for the discussion on whether octave can be linked against arpack: bug #234191
Thanks, spot, for clearing the FE-Legal issues for the principal import!
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: arpack - Fortran77 subroutines for solving large scale eigenvalue problems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=214967
------- Additional Comments From Axel.Thimm@ATrpms.net 2007-03-27 13:15 EST ------- Now that the licensing issues are clarified we can continue reviewing:
Spec URL: http://dl.atrpms.net/all/arpack.spec SRPM URL: http://dl.atrpms.net/all/arpack-2.1-6.at.src.rpm
This includes the license (+ a text transcript of the doc file ...) & author clarification. It also includes the patch by rathann of comment #10.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: arpack - Fortran77 subroutines for solving large scale eigenvalue problems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=214967
------- Additional Comments From rpm@greysector.net 2007-03-27 13:48 EST ------- (In reply to comment #22)
Well, I guess that's what I (and octave's author) don't understand. While the advertising clause is apparently non-binding and likely unenforceable, it does appear to make it technically incompatible with the GPL. That makes it impossible for octave, a GPL program, to link to it. So, we can include this in Fedora, but other Fedora programs can't link to it? My interest in getting arpack into Fedora was for the benefit of octave. Maybe this should be taken up with the FSF.
I'm interested in arpack for the benefit of freefem++, which is LGPL, so don't say that "other Fedora programs can't link to it".
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: arpack - Fortran77 subroutines for solving large scale eigenvalue problems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=214967
bugzilla@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Priority|normal |medium
mr.ecik@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |mr.ecik@gmail.com
------- Additional Comments From mr.ecik@gmail.com 2007-04-27 11:39 EST ------- Spec file quote:
# The correct dependency would be the following, but it doesn't exist on
RHEL4/3
#BuildRequires: lapack-devel BuildRequires: %{_libdir}/liblapack.so
Unfortunately, the new dependency breaks mock (fc6/x86_64) for me.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: arpack - Fortran77 subroutines for solving large scale eigenvalue problems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=214967
------- Additional Comments From mr.ecik@gmail.com 2007-04-27 11:51 EST ------- To be precise, this happens because instead of lapack-devel, mock installs atlas-devel.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: arpack - Fortran77 subroutines for solving large scale eigenvalue problems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=214967
------- Additional Comments From Axel.Thimm@ATrpms.net 2007-04-27 12:43 EST ------- How does it break? Maybe it is an atlas <-> lapack generic issue?
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: arpack - Fortran77 subroutines for solving large scale eigenvalue problems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=214967
------- Additional Comments From mr.ecik@gmail.com 2007-04-28 06:38 EST ------- (In reply to comment #29)
How does it break? Maybe it is an atlas <-> lapack generic issue?
Yes, it is.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: arpack - Fortran77 subroutines for solving large scale eigenvalue problems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=214967
------- Additional Comments From Axel.Thimm@ATrpms.net 2007-04-28 07:33 EST ------- Is there a bugzilla for this? If yes, we should add this as a blocker to this bug, or at least reference it. If not, could you please open one and block/reference this to this bug? Thanks!
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: arpack - Fortran77 subroutines for solving large scale eigenvalue problems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=214967
------- Additional Comments From mr.ecik@gmail.com 2007-04-28 16:12 EST ------- The problem seems interesting but I've got a question. You've written that lapack-devel doesn't exist on RHEL. So which package provides %{_libdir}/ liblapack.so in RHEL?
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: arpack - Fortran77 subroutines for solving large scale eigenvalue problems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=214967
------- Additional Comments From rpm@greysector.net 2007-04-28 16:13 EST ------- Axel, why don't you keep BuildRequires: lapack-devel and just change it in RHEL branch of the specfile?
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: arpack - Fortran77 subroutines for solving large scale eigenvalue problems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=214967
------- Additional Comments From Axel.Thimm@ATrpms.net 2007-04-28 21:58 EST -------
The problem seems interesting but I've got a question. You've written that lapack-devel doesn't exist on RHEL. So which package provides %{_libdir}/ liblapack.so in RHEL?
lapack itself, e.g. what I meant is that RHEL does have lapack, but hasn't split out the development files to lapack-devel, but the file dependency covers both. It's a packaging difference just in naming and subpackaging - at the end it's lapack bits that are being used in both cases.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: arpack - Fortran77 subroutines for solving large scale eigenvalue problems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=214967
------- Additional Comments From rpm@greysector.net 2007-05-18 13:06 EST ------- Any progress? I have a new package depending on this.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: arpack - Fortran77 subroutines for solving large scale eigenvalue problems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=214967
------- Additional Comments From Axel.Thimm@ATrpms.net 2007-05-18 13:22 EST ------- rathann, could you fix the liblapack.so conflict between lapack and atlas?
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: arpack - Fortran77 subroutines for solving large scale eigenvalue problems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=214967
------- Additional Comments From rpm@greysector.net 2007-05-18 13:48 EST ------- There's no conflict. atlas' lapack is in a different directory (%{_libdir}/atlas/ IIRC).
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: arpack - Fortran77 subroutines for solving large scale eigenvalue problems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=214967
------- Additional Comments From Axel.Thimm@ATrpms.net 2007-05-23 07:41 EST ------- It looks like the comments from Michał Bentkowski indicate that lapack/atlas are sharing (virtual?) Provides, but are not compatible. See also comment #13.
If atlas-devel/lapack-devel are interchangable forget my comment :)
Quentin, any chance you'd find some time for reviewing? Or are you waiting to see whether this package is GPL compatible (bug #234191), as otherwise it is of no use to octave?
If you don't want to review with the current license or until bug #234191 is resolved otherwise, then perhaps someone else would like to? Rathann, maybe?
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: arpack - Fortran77 subroutines for solving large scale eigenvalue problems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=214967
------- Additional Comments From qspencer@ieee.org 2007-05-23 21:46 EST ------- I was going to take a look at it, but the most recent SRPM link is broken:
http://dl.atrpms.net/all/arpack-2.1-6.at.src.rpm
The spec is still there, but since there are patches are other local source files, I thought it would be easier to review the SRPM. Having said that, I don't have a lot of time to do this, so if someone else wants to take it, they can. If not, I'll try to get it done soon.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: arpack - Fortran77 subroutines for solving large scale eigenvalue problems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=214967
------- Additional Comments From Axel.Thimm@ATrpms.net 2007-05-24 04:08 EST ------- There is no '.at' anymore in the package name, e.g. it's plain
http://dl.atrpms.net/all/arpack-2.1-6.src.rpm
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: arpack - Fortran77 subroutines for solving large scale eigenvalue problems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=214967
tibbs@math.uh.edu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-review?
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: arpack - Fortran77 subroutines for solving large scale eigenvalue problems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=214967
------- Additional Comments From Axel.Thimm@ATrpms.net 2007-06-10 17:12 EST ------- Anyone up to a a review?
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: arpack - Fortran77 subroutines for solving large scale eigenvalue problems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=214967
------- Additional Comments From rpm@greysector.net 2007-06-12 17:36 EST ------- I'm a bit busy these days, but I'll try to find some time during the weekend to do this.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: arpack - Fortran77 subroutines for solving large scale eigenvalue problems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=214967
bugzilla@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Product|Fedora Extras |Fedora
rpm@greysector.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|qspencer@ieee.org |rpm@greysector.net
------- Additional Comments From rpm@greysector.net 2007-06-29 13:40 EST ------- I'll review this now.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: arpack - Fortran77 subroutines for solving large scale eigenvalue problems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=214967
------- Additional Comments From rpm@greysector.net 2007-06-29 14:07 EST ------- I suggest the following patch to adress two issues: 1. we shouldn't ship static libraries 2. there's a bug in eigenvalue calculation routine, see http://www.ann.jussieu.fr/pipermail/freefempp/2006/000213.html for more details.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: arpack - Fortran77 subroutines for solving large scale eigenvalue problems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=214967
------- Additional Comments From rpm@greysector.net 2007-06-29 14:10 EST ------- Created an attachment (id=158233) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=158233&action=vie...) patch to remove static libs and fix function name clash
You can to get the arpack-patch-lapack.tar.gz from any freefem++ tarball.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: arpack - Fortran77 subroutines for solving large scale eigenvalue problems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=214967
------- Additional Comments From rpm@greysector.net 2007-06-29 14:40 EST ------- Doesn't build in mock/devel/x86_64:
+ gcc -shared -llapack -Wl,-soname,libarpack.so.2 -o libarpack.so.2.1 cgetv0.o cmout.o cnaitr.o cnapps.o cnaup2.o cnaupd.o cneigh.o cneupd.o cngets.o csortc.o cstatn.o cvout.o dgetv0.o dlaqrb.o dmout.o dnaitr.o dnapps.o dnaup2.o dnaupd.o dnconv.o dneigh.o dneupd.o dngets.o dsaitr.o dsapps.o dsaup2.o dsaupd.o dsconv.o dseigt.o dsesrt.o dseupd.o dsgets.o dsortc.o dsortr.o dstatn.o dstats.o dstqrb.o dvout.o icnteq.o icopy.o iset.o iswap.o ivout.o second.o sgetv0.o slaqrb.o smout.o snaitr.o snapps.o snaup2.o snaupd.o snconv.o sneigh.o sneupd.o sngets.o ssaitr.o ssapps.o ssaup2.o ssaupd.o ssconv.o sseigt.o ssesrt.o sseupd.o ssgets.o ssortc.o ssortr.o sstatn.o sstats.o sstqrb.o svout.o zgetv0.o zmout.o znaitr.o znapps.o znaup2.o znaupd.o zneigh.o zneupd.o zngets.o zsortc.o zstatn.o zvout.o /usr/bin/ld: cannot find -llapack collect2: ld returned 1 exit status error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.94753 (%build)
I suggest you keep BuildRequires: lapack-devel for now and change it to BR: lapack for older RHEL.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: arpack - Fortran77 subroutines for solving large scale eigenvalue problems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=214967
------- Additional Comments From Axel.Thimm@ATrpms.net 2007-06-29 15:43 EST ------- Is that perhaps comment #38?
It looks like the comments from Michał Bentkowski indicate that lapack/atlas are sharing (virtual?) Provides, but are not compatible. See also comment #13.
If atlas-devel/lapack-devel are interchangable forget my comment :)
E.g. did your build fail because atlas was pulled in instead of lapack? In that case it's an issue within lapack <-> atlas that should be fixed irrespective of arpack.
But even then I wonder why the build doesn't find %{_libdir}/liblapack.so when it's an explicit build requirement, even if pulled in from atlas.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: arpack - Fortran77 subroutines for solving large scale eigenvalue problems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=214967
------- Additional Comments From Axel.Thimm@ATrpms.net 2007-06-29 15:54 EST ------- (In reply to comment #44)
I suggest the following patch to adress two issues:
- we shouldn't ship static libraries
Why not? Many people using arpack do so in static builds. But what needs to be done is to split of the static lib in arpack-static (when the package was submitted the guideline did not exist yet).
- there's a bug in eigenvalue calculation routine, see
http://www.ann.jussieu.fr/pipermail/freefempp/2006/000213.html for more details.
Thanks! It does look a bit awkward that freefem++ ships a patch to two files as those two files in a tarball within its tarball, and for simplicity's sake I'll better make a real patch out of it. Do you perhaps know whether freefem++ reported this bug upstream to arpack? I saw that you asked, but there was no reply on the archive (maybe unlinked due to mailman's archive boundaries).
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: arpack - Fortran77 subroutines for solving large scale eigenvalue problems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=214967
------- Additional Comments From rpm@greysector.net 2007-06-29 16:07 EST ------- (In reply to comment #47)
Is that perhaps comment #38?
[...]
E.g. did your build fail because atlas was pulled in instead of lapack? In that case it's an issue within lapack <-> atlas that should be fixed irrespective of arpack.
Yes. atlas-devel got installed.
But even then I wonder why the build doesn't find %{_libdir}/liblapack.so when it's an explicit build requirement, even if pulled in from atlas.
Hm. We'll have to investigate that.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: arpack - Fortran77 subroutines for solving large scale eigenvalue problems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=214967
------- Additional Comments From rpm@greysector.net 2007-06-29 16:13 EST ------- (In reply to comment #48)
(In reply to comment #44)
I suggest the following patch to adress two issues:
- we shouldn't ship static libraries
Why not? Many people using arpack do so in static builds. But what needs to be done is to split of the static lib in arpack-static (when the package was submitted the guideline did not exist yet).
Why too? The guidelines say there must be a compelling reason to ship static libs. Is there one? If yes, please provide it. And yes, of course static libs must be in a separate subpackage.
- there's a bug in eigenvalue calculation routine, see
http://www.ann.jussieu.fr/pipermail/freefempp/2006/000213.html for more details.
Thanks! It does look a bit awkward that freefem++ ships a patch to two files as those two files in a tarball within its tarball, and for simplicity's sake I'll better make a real patch out of it. Do you perhaps know whether freefem++ reported this bug upstream to arpack? I saw that you asked, but there was no reply on the archive (maybe unlinked due to mailman's archive boundaries).
I don't think they did. At least there were no further replies. I would've made a patch myself, but I don't know Fortran and I didn't have time to look into it.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: arpack - Fortran77 subroutines for solving large scale eigenvalue problems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=214967
------- Additional Comments From Axel.Thimm@ATrpms.net 2007-06-29 16:29 EST ------- In continuation to comment #47
The atlas vs lapack issue is quite mysterious:
# repoquery -q --whatprovides /usr/lib64/liblapack.so Importing additional filelist information atlas-devel-0:3.6.0-11.fc6.x86_64 lapack-devel-0:3.1.1-1.fc6.x86_64 # rpm -q atlas-devel atlas-devel-3.6.0-11.fc6 # rpm -ql atlas-devel | grep liblapack.so$ /usr/lib64/atlas/liblapack.so # rpm -q atlas-devel --provides atlas-devel = 3.6.0-11.fc6
So repoquery (and therefore also yum/mock) think atlas-devel contains %{_libdir}/liblapack.so while in reality it does not? I haven't looked at the atlas specfile, but the situation above should not be possible to happen.
Why is repoquery fooled that atlas-devel contains %{_libdir}/liblapack.so? It isn't a %file and not a virtual Provides: either.
(this comment probably belongs as a bug report against atlas or yum-metadata-parser)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: arpack - Fortran77 subroutines for solving large scale eigenvalue problems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=214967
------- Additional Comments From Axel.Thimm@ATrpms.net 2007-06-29 16:53 EST ------- (In reply to comment #50)
Many people using arpack do so in static builds.
Why too? The guidelines say there must be a compelling reason to ship static libs. Is there one? If yes, please provide it.
The reason is that people use it that way. :)
Seriously though, it has been often discussed on fedora-packaging that numerical libraries are more often than not statically linked especially on large sites with heterogeneous setups (e.g. every numerical physics institute ... ;).
People have been ranting about scientists and their assumed lack of IT skills, bad IT planning leading to non-homogeneous setups, not keeping all Linux systems on the same distro and release etc., but irrespective of whether one approves of their work mode and IT setups the fact remains that static libs are very much in use there. Which makes every numerical libs a candidate for a static subpackage.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: arpack - Fortran77 subroutines for solving large scale eigenvalue problems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=214967
------- Additional Comments From pertusus@free.fr 2007-06-29 17:31 EST ------- (In reply to comment #50)
Why too? The guidelines say there must be a compelling reason to ship static libs. Is there one? If yes, please provide it. And yes, of course static libs must be in a separate subpackage.
I have tried to summarize the reasons for shipping static libs for numerical and data processing on my wiki page
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PatriceDumas
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: arpack - Fortran77 subroutines for solving large scale eigenvalue problems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=214967
------- Additional Comments From rpm@greysector.net 2007-07-06 08:41 EST ------- (In reply to comment #48)
Why not? Many people using arpack do so in static builds. But what needs to be done is to split of the static lib in arpack-static (when the package was submitted the guideline did not exist yet).
OK, I have no objections to shipping static libs as long as they're in a separate subpackage.
Thanks! It does look a bit awkward that freefem++ ships a patch to two files as those two files in a tarball within its tarball, and for simplicity's sake I'll better make a real patch out of it.
Ping?
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: arpack - Fortran77 subroutines for solving large scale eigenvalue problems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=214967
------- Additional Comments From rpm@greysector.net 2007-08-27 13:03 EST ------- Axel, it's been 2 months with no changes. I've asked you to apply a simple workaround for the lapack issue, which you ignored. You offered to clean up the patch from freefem, but nothing has happened since. If nothing changes within a few days, I'm going to close this review and submit my own request. This has been holding up my freefem++ package for too long now.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: arpack - Fortran77 subroutines for solving large scale eigenvalue problems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=214967
------- Additional Comments From rpm@greysector.net 2007-08-27 13:38 EST ------- (In reply to comment #51)
In continuation to comment #47
The atlas vs lapack issue is quite mysterious:
# repoquery -q --whatprovides /usr/lib64/liblapack.so Importing additional filelist information atlas-devel-0:3.6.0-11.fc6.x86_64 lapack-devel-0:3.1.1-1.fc6.x86_64 # rpm -q atlas-devel atlas-devel-3.6.0-11.fc6 # rpm -ql atlas-devel | grep liblapack.so$ /usr/lib64/atlas/liblapack.so # rpm -q atlas-devel --provides atlas-devel = 3.6.0-11.fc6
So repoquery (and therefore also yum/mock) think atlas-devel contains %{_libdir}/liblapack.so while in reality it does not? I haven't looked at the atlas specfile, but the situation above should not be possible to happen.
Why is repoquery fooled that atlas-devel contains %{_libdir}/liblapack.so? It isn't a %file and not a virtual Provides: either.
(this comment probably belongs as a bug report against atlas or
yum-metadata-parser)
FWIW, F-7's repoquery doesn't have this problem: $ repoquery -q --whatprovides /usr/lib64/liblapack.so Loading "fastestmirror" plugin Loading mirror speeds from cached hostfile Importing additional filelist information lapack-devel-0:3.1.0-4.fc7.x86_64 lapack-devel-0:3.1.1-1.fc7.x86_64
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: arpack - Fortran77 subroutines for solving large scale eigenvalue problems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=214967
axel.thimm@atrpms.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- BugsThisDependsOn| |258041
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: arpack - Fortran77 subroutines for solving large scale eigenvalue problems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=214967
------- Additional Comments From axel.thimm@atrpms.net 2007-08-27 17:09 EST ------- (In reply to comment #55)
Axel, it's been 2 months with no changes. I've asked you to apply a simple workaround for the lapack issue, which you ignored.
I didn't ignore it, we were talking about this issue on bugzilla and list.
The workaround you suggest is looking more like papering over an issue that will revenge itself later. You suggest to force the choice on BR, but we have no sane way to do so for the run-time dependencies, too. Starting to work around that, too, is the wrong angle to attack this. The issue is a generic problem between lapack and atlas and needs to be resolved and not looked away from. I opened bug #258041 for this issue and made it a blocker.
You offered to clean up the patch from freefem, but nothing has happened since. If nothing changes within a few days, I'm going to close this review and submit my own request. This has been holding up my freefem++ package for too long now.
OK, I suggest if you have the time that you clean up the patch and submit it to this bugzilla.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: arpack - Fortran77 subroutines for solving large scale eigenvalue problems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=214967
rpm@greysector.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attachment #158233|0 |1 is obsolete| |
------- Additional Comments From rpm@greysector.net 2007-10-23 20:57 EST ------- Created an attachment (id=235721) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=235721&action=view) specfile patch to fix function name clash
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: arpack - Fortran77 subroutines for solving large scale eigenvalue problems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=214967
------- Additional Comments From rpm@greysector.net 2007-10-23 20:58 EST ------- Created an attachment (id=235731) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=235731&action=view) source patch to fix function name clash
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: arpack - Fortran77 subroutines for solving large scale eigenvalue problems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=214967
------- Additional Comments From rpm@greysector.net 2007-10-23 20:59 EST ------- (In reply to comment #57)
OK, I suggest if you have the time that you clean up the patch and submit it to this bugzilla.
Done.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: arpack - Fortran77 subroutines for solving large scale eigenvalue problems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=214967
rpm@greysector.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- BugsThisDependsOn| |349801
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: arpack - Fortran77 subroutines for solving large scale eigenvalue problems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=214967
------- Additional Comments From rpm@greysector.net 2007-10-23 21:24 EST ------- Filed bug 349801 against mock.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: arpack - Fortran77 subroutines for solving large scale eigenvalue problems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=214967
------- Additional Comments From axel.thimm@atrpms.net 2007-10-24 07:57 EST ------- Thanks a lot, taken as is. Will still post new URLs for spec/src.rpm to be formally correct.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: arpack - Fortran77 subroutines for solving large scale eigenvalue problems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=214967
------- Additional Comments From axel.thimm@atrpms.net 2007-10-26 02:16 EST ------- http://dl.atrpms.net/all/arpack-2.1-7.src.rpm http://dl.atrpms.net/all/arpack.spec
* Wed Oct 24 2007 Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski rpm@greysector.net 2.1-7 - apply Frederic Hecht's patch for eigenvalue bug - move static libs to separate package
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: arpack - Fortran77 subroutines for solving large scale eigenvalue problems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=214967
Bug 214967 depends on bug 349801, which changed state.
Bug 349801 Summary: mock installs packages that don't satisfy BuildRequires: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=349801
What |Old Value |New Value ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: arpack - Fortran77 subroutines for solving large scale eigenvalue problems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=214967
Bug 214967 depends on bug 349801, which changed state.
Bug 349801 Summary: mock installs packages that don't satisfy BuildRequires: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=349801
What |Old Value |New Value ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|CLOSED |ASSIGNED Resolution|NEXTRELEASE |
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: arpack - Fortran77 subroutines for solving large scale eigenvalue problems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=214967
bugzilla@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Version|devel |rawhide
axel.thimm@atrpms.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |NEEDINFO Flag| |needinfo?(rpm@greysector.net | |)
------- Additional Comments From axel.thimm@atrpms.net 2007-12-30 05:07 EST ------- I think this possibly only needs your approved check mark (all your changes were taken verbatim :)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: arpack - Fortran77 subroutines for solving large scale eigenvalue problems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=214967
Bug 214967 depends on bug 258041, which changed state.
Bug 258041 Summary: atlas Provides: lapack equivalents https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=258041
What |Old Value |New Value ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEEDINFO |CLOSED Resolution| |NOTABUG
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: arpack - Fortran77 subroutines for solving large scale eigenvalue problems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=214967
rpm@greysector.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEEDINFO |ASSIGNED Flag|fedora-review?, |fedora-review+ |needinfo?(rpm@greysector.net| |) |
------- Additional Comments From rpm@greysector.net 2007-12-30 08:32 EST ------- I've checked everything once again and this package is APPROVED. However, please add %{?_smp_mflags} to both make calls in %build. I've tested the build locally on a dual-core CPU and it completed successfully so I see no reason no to use -jN. It still won't build in koji as-is (see bug 349801), but that's not our fault.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: arpack - Fortran77 subroutines for solving large scale eigenvalue problems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=214967
------- Additional Comments From rpm@greysector.net 2008-01-17 06:27 EST ------- *ping*
Could you add a workaround (BR: lapack-devel instead of %{_libdir}/liblapack.so) in the meantime and build this?
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: arpack - Fortran77 subroutines for solving large scale eigenvalue problems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=214967
tibbs@math.uh.edu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO|163778 | nThis| |
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: arpack - Fortran77 subroutines for solving large scale eigenvalue problems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=214967
axel.thimm@atrpms.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs?
------- Additional Comments From axel.thimm@atrpms.net 2008-01-20 03:09 EST ------- New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: arpack Short Description: Fortran77 subroutines for solving large scale eigenvalue problems Owners: athimm Branches: F-8 InitialCC: Cvsextras Commits: no
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: arpack - Fortran77 subroutines for solving large scale eigenvalue problems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=214967
------- Additional Comments From rpm@greysector.net 2008-01-20 05:42 EST ------- Please include the F-7 branch, if it's not too much trouble. I've already created the F-7 branch of freefem++ (which depends on arpack).
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: arpack - Fortran77 subroutines for solving large scale eigenvalue problems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=214967
kevin@tummy.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |kevin@tummy.com
------- Additional Comments From kevin@tummy.com 2008-01-21 11:53 EST ------- Axel: do you want a F-7 branch as well?
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: arpack - Fortran77 subroutines for solving large scale eigenvalue problems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=214967
------- Additional Comments From axel.thimm@atrpms.net 2008-01-25 15:34 EST ------- (In reply to comment #69)
Axel: do you want a F-7 branch as well?
Yes, no problem. I thought there might not be demand for F7, but since there is, let's build it :)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: arpack - Fortran77 subroutines for solving large scale eigenvalue problems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=214967
kevin@tummy.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+
------- Additional Comments From kevin@tummy.com 2008-01-25 15:48 EST ------- cvs done.
Any particular reason for the cvsextras commits: no?
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: arpack - Fortran77 subroutines for solving large scale eigenvalue problems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=214967
------- Additional Comments From axel.thimm@atrpms.net 2008-01-26 02:08 EST ------- Thanks!
Any particular reason for the cvsextras commits: no?
No particular reason as in "arpack specific". I just believe that if someone is interested in comaintaining a package he should first become a comaintainer. Important mass edits and time-critical security fixes happen independent of that setting anyway.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: arpack - Fortran77 subroutines for solving large scale eigenvalue problems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=214967
------- Additional Comments From axel.thimm@atrpms.net 2008-01-26 03:05 EST ------- Oh, well, I now hit bug #349801 ... :(
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: arpack - Fortran77 subroutines for solving large scale eigenvalue problems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=214967
------- Additional Comments From kevin@tummy.com 2008-01-26 13:31 EST ------- In reply to Comment #72:
Sure, but allowing cvsextras would let other people help out on the package in the event you were unavailable or busy. In any event, up to you, just wanted to know the reasoning...
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: arpack - Fortran77 subroutines for solving large scale eigenvalue problems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=214967
Bug 214967 depends on bug 349801, which changed state.
Bug 349801 Summary: mock installs packages that don't satisfy BuildRequires: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=349801
What |Old Value |New Value ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |WORKSFORME
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: arpack - Fortran77 subroutines for solving large scale eigenvalue problems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=214967
------- Additional Comments From updates@fedoraproject.org 2008-02-16 16:48 EST ------- arpack-2.1-7.fc8 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 8
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: arpack - Fortran77 subroutines for solving large scale eigenvalue problems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=214967
------- Additional Comments From updates@fedoraproject.org 2008-02-16 16:48 EST ------- arpack-2.1-7.fc7 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 7
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: arpack - Fortran77 subroutines for solving large scale eigenvalue problems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=214967
------- Additional Comments From updates@fedoraproject.org 2008-02-18 22:14 EST ------- arpack-2.1-7.fc8 has been pushed to the Fedora 8 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: arpack - Fortran77 subroutines for solving large scale eigenvalue problems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=214967
updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |CURRENTRELEASE Fixed In Version| |2.1-7.fc8
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: arpack - Fortran77 subroutines for solving large scale eigenvalue problems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=214967
------- Additional Comments From updates@fedoraproject.org 2008-02-18 22:17 EST ------- arpack-2.1-7.fc7 has been pushed to the Fedora 7 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=214967
Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski rpm@greysector.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|CURRENTRELEASE |NEXTRELEASE
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=214967
Axel Thimm axel.thimm@atrpms.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|NEXTRELEASE |CURRENTRELEASE
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=214967
Jussi Lehtola jussi.lehtola@iki.fi changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |jussi.lehtola@iki.fi
--- Comment #79 from Jussi Lehtola jussi.lehtola@iki.fi 2010-01-06 05:44:43 EDT --- Can you build this for EPEL 5? I'd need it to update Octave to the 3.2 series.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=214967
Jussi Lehtola jussi.lehtola@iki.fi changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #81 from Jussi Lehtola jussi.lehtola@iki.fi 2010-01-17 06:31:52 EST --- No reply for more than a week, including an email sent to arpack-owner on Jan 9.
I can take ownership of the EPEL branch; if you want to maintain it yourself then just give me a ping.
Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: arpack New Branches: EL-5 Owners: jussilehtola
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=214967
Jason Tibbitts tibbs@math.uh.edu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+
--- Comment #82 from Jason Tibbitts tibbs@math.uh.edu 2010-01-19 14:32:58 EST --- CVS done. By the way, you do not have to wait for Axel to respond, since he's already indicated that he doesn't wish to participate in EPEL: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/ContributorStatusNo
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=214967
--- Comment #83 from Jussi Lehtola jussi.lehtola@iki.fi 2010-01-19 14:50:06 EST --- Thanks. Oh, I hadn't thought of looking there.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla