Hi Heather, thanks a lot for your quick response. We do not have any deadline since Debian 11 was "just" released.
Kind regards Andreas. On Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 12:01:20PM +0100, Heather Turner wrote: > Hi Andreas, > > Thanks for forwarding this bug report and thanks to Sébastien for the > detailed and accurate analysis. I will need to submit an update to CRAN, > which should be feasible in the next week or two. Is there a deadline that I > need to work to? > > Best wishes, > > Heather > > On Mon, Sep 27, 2021, at 10:12 AM, Andreas Tille wrote: > > Control: tags -1 upstream > > Control: forwarded -1 Heather Turner <h...@heatherturner.net> > > > > Hi Heather, > > > > the Debian packaged gnm recieved a bug report about a failing test in > > connection with the upgrade to lapack 3.10.0 on the machine running the > > test. Please read the bug report below. > > > > We admit we need your help to solve this issue that might affect > > other systems as well. > > > > Kind regards > > > > Andreas. > > > > On Thu, Sep 16, 2021 at 10:59:19AM +0200, Sébastien Villemot wrote: > >> Package: r-cran-gnm > >> Version: 1.1-1-2 > >> Severity: serious > >> Tags: sid bookworm > >> X-Debbugs-CC: debian...@lists.debian.org > >> User: debian...@lists.debian.org > >> Usertags: needs-update > >> > >> Dear Maintainer, > >> > >> Since the upload of lapack 3.10.0-1, the autopkgtest of r-cran-gnm > >> fails in unstable. See for example: > >> https://ci.debian.net/data/autopkgtest/unstable/amd64/r/r-cran-gnm/15155026/log.gz > >> > >> More precisely, test-biplot.R fails, because some results have the > >> opposite sign compared to the one which is expected. > >> > >> My understanding is that this comes from the SVD of barleyMatrix in > >> that test file, which is different between lapack 3.9 and 3.10. > >> Mathematically, the SVD is not unique, and lapack 3.10 returns a > >> different (still valid) solution. More precisely, I verified that one > >> of the right-singular vector of that matrix has the opposite sign in > >> lapack 3.10. I also verified that the decomposition is correct by > >> checking that: > >> > >> max(abs(barleySVD$u %*% diag(barleySVD$d) %*% t(barleySVD$v) - > >> barleyMatrix)) > >> > >> is a small value (about 2e-14). > >> > >> Also note that the hardcoded expected values already partially differ > >> from those of the original research paper mentioned in that test > >> (Gabriel (1998): Generalised bilinear regression). More precisely, half > >> of the values were hardcoded with the opposite sign. It seems that now > >> all values need to be hardcoded with the opposite sign. > >> > >> The testsuite of r-cran-gnm thus needs to be adapted, by being more > >> tolerant to such sign changes. > >> > >> N.B. : when trying to reproduce the problem, please ensure that your > >> lapack alternative (as given by “update-alternatives --display > >> liblapack.so.3-x86_64-linux-gnu) points to /usr/lib/x86_64-linux- > >> gnu/lapack/liblapack.so.3, and not to the binary provided by either > >> openblas or atlas (because these two have not yet been recompiled > >> against lapack 3.10, and thus do not expose the problem). > >> > >> Best regards, > >> > >> -- > >> ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ Sébastien Villemot > >> ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Debian Developer > >> ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ https://sebastien.villemot.name > >> ⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ https://www.debian.org > >> > > > > > > > >> _______________________________________________ > >> R-pkg-team mailing list > >> r-pkg-t...@alioth-lists.debian.net > >> https://alioth-lists.debian.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r-pkg-team > > > > > > -- > > http://fam-tille.de > -- http://fam-tille.de