[EPEL-devel] Re: how to do epel8 fedpkg mockbuild?

[Dave Love]

Pavel Raiskup  writes:

> I'd encourage anyone to update to the latest fedpkg (v1.42):
> https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/?packages=fedpkg
>
> And Mock (configs v36.6):
> https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/?packages=mock

What I was using, in the hope it would help, is the latest in
epel-testing (fedpkg-1.41-2, mock-2.16-1, and mock-core-configs-37-1).

> Then mock should give a verbose hint about what to do.  For more info:
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/de...@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/BNQ2TFWODJW3JSOBAG26AZQBOS5HHZMD/

So it will stay broken in EPEL7?
___
epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to epel-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
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/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

[EPEL-devel] Re: how to do epel8 fedpkg mockbuild?

[Dave Love]

I wrote: 

> What do you need to do these days to run an epel-8 mock build?
> fedpkg mockbuild fails for me with
>
> Error: Error downloading packages:
>   Status code: 403 for
> https://infrastructure.fedoraproject.org/repo/rhel/rhel8/koji/latest/x86_64/RHEL-8-001/non_modular/audit-libs-3.0-0.17.20191104git1c2f876.el8.x86_64.rpm
> (IP: 38.145.60.16)

It turns out that it works if you link, say, the alma+epel mock config
into ~/.config/mock/epel-8-x86_64.cfg, per Richard Shaw's question at
around the same time.  I might have guessed that was the problem if it
reported an error about epel-8-x86_64.cfg rather than failing to
download RHEL rpms.  (I just had alma linked to default.cfg on the RHEL8
system I use, not to epel-8.)
___
epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to epel-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
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/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

[EPEL-devel] how to do epel8 fedpkg mockbuild?

[Dave Love]

What do you need to do these days to run an epel-8 mock build?
fedpkg mockbuild fails for me with

Error: Error downloading packages:
  Status code: 403 for 
https://infrastructure.fedoraproject.org/repo/rhel/rhel8/koji/latest/x86_64/RHEL-8-001/non_modular/audit-libs-3.0-0.17.20191104git1c2f876.el8.x86_64.rpm
 (IP: 38.145.60.16)

I configured a RHEL subscription key so that I can make a rhel-8 root
successfully.
___
epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to epel-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
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/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

[EPEL-devel] Re: Getting conman into EPEL8

[Dave Love]

For what it's worth, there's a conman build for x86_64 and aarch64 in
the loveshack/livhpc copr (untested).
___
epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to epel-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
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/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

[EPEL-devel] EPEL8 R package rebuilds

[Dave Love]

I just tried to build an R package in copr, and it failed because an R
dependency (which I maintain) needs rebuilding for R 4.

Apart from the question of why R was updated to an incompatible version,
what was supposed to happen about rebuilding things as a consequence?  I
got a large amount of noise due to that package from rebuilds in
rawhide, and I'd have assumed the same would have happened for EPEL.
Have I missed some notification that I had to do something?
___
epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to epel-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
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/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

[EPEL-devel] Re: any objections to BLIS soname bump in el7?

[Dave Love]

Stephen John Smoogen  writes:

> Brought up at the meeting and there were no objections to doing this. Thank 
> you.

Thanks, but I was really interested in uses outside Fedora packages,
though I don't know of any for the non-BLAS interface, and there's
probably no good place to ask.

If you're enlightened enough to run an HPC system mainly off packaging,
users' own binaries are still affected by sonames.  [Rant about ELF
versioning etc. elided.]
___
epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to epel-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
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/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

[EPEL-devel] any objections to BLIS soname bump in el7?

[Dave Love]

I'd like to upgrade the el7 blis package (v0.4) to the latest version
(v0.6), which has a soname bump.  It's not currently required by
anything else in EPEL, and the BLAS compatibility shims won't change.
Any objection?

The current version has a potential security problem from using popen,
and is missing optimizations.  (BLIS is what you want for AVX512 BLAS,
in particular, at least until OpenBLAS sorts that out.)
___
epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to epel-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
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/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

[EPEL-devel] Re: missing -devel packages in 8 beta

[Dave Love]

R P Herrold  writes:

> What particular -devel are you seeking?  Is it 
> non-versioned, such that you can work-around 
> with an earlier one?

I gave an example; I assume the openmpi BRs are in the builder repo.

> Customarily I would just bootstrap forward to a needed leaf 
> node package from the sources ...

Obviously I can do that and set up a repo for use with mock, but you
surely don't expect all package maintainers to do that.

> That said, I don't find a 
> SRPMs' DVD.  Sort of a strange omission in light of the making 
> available of binary RPMs
>
> I see later in the thread the suggestion to file a boog
>
> done:
>   https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1657930

What's that reporting, as it's not visible?

[Red Hat making issues private makes me less likely to report bugs.
After experiencing that, I expect to report bugs elsewhere if there's
somewhere relevant.]
___
epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to epel-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

[EPEL-devel] Re: missing -devel packages in 8 beta

[Dave Love]

Stephen John Smoogen 
writes:

> Most -devel packages have been moved into the CodeReady Linux Builder
> https://developers.redhat.com/blog/2018/11/15/introducing-codeready-linux-builder/
> which is supposed to be available in the developer subscription. If
> the package you need isn't there then it should be reported as a bug.

Oh, thanks.  That wasn't obvious to me when I looked at release info,
though I was doubtless looking at the wrong things.

I can access this in an rhel8 VM, but am failing with mock, which
clearly needs the el8 configuration fixing.  After setting it up with
gpgcheck=0 I see

  Failed to synchronize cache for repo 
'codeready-builder-beta-for-rhel-8-x86_64-rpms', ignoring this repo.

whereas the base and appstream repo work.  Does anyone have that
working, and, if so, how?

> Please do report things you  are having problems with as everyone is
> probably waiting for someone else to do so :).

Sure, though I assumed I was slow off the mark with this.
___
epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to epel-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

[EPEL-devel] missing -devel packages in 8 beta

[Dave Love]

Does anyone know what the situation is with -devel packages in RHEL8
beta?  Many seem to be missing, so it's difficult to test EPEL builds
for 8, and you can't necessarily rebuild ones that are shipped in the
distribution; an example is openmpi, with most of the BRs missing.  (I
can't even do useful chain builds because that's failing for chains of
three, which I should try to debug.)

I can't see any relevant-looking extra repos to enable on my developer
subscription, and I wonder whether to report bugs against the missing
packages.
___
epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to epel-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

[EPEL-devel] building with devtoolset

[Dave Love]

I thought devtoolset was now available for building EPEL packages, but
I've just tried with something that needs a more recent gcc than el6's
but neither devtoolset-6 nor -7 are found.  Should that work?
___
epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to epel-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

[EPEL-devel] Re: Can EPEL Repository provide LAPACK package which is compiled against OpenBLAS?

[Dave Love]

Brandon Hsu
 writes:

> Hi,
>
> I try to compile and install some programs in CentOS 7 which depends on
> LAPACK.
>
> I hope to use LAPACK linked to OpenBLAS, which gives better performance
> compared to Reference BLAS.

OpenBLAS provides its own LAPACK, which has some optimizations and is
probably more recent than RHEl's -- I haven't checked.  You can just
link against that, and the EPEL OB rpms are recent.

> But in CentOS 7, LAPACK packages is linked to Netlib BLAS, not OpenBLAS.
>
> As far as I know, in Arch Linux, their team provides such package
> https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/openblas-lapack/
>
> which provides LAPACK library linked to OpenBLAS.
>
> So I guess it is possible to have such package in CentOS, too.
>
> I know that I can just compile LAPACK + OpenBLAS by myself rather than
> installing pre-compiled packages, but it would be better to have rpm files
> instead..

The linear algebra situation in RHEl/Fedora is unfortunate, but you can
hack around linkage with inefficient BLAS/LAPACK
.
___
epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to epel-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[EPEL-devel] Re: Can EPEL Repository provide LAPACK package which is compiled against OpenBLAS?

[Dave Love]

[Apologies if this appears twice, but it doesn't seem to have got
through.]

Brandon Hsu
 writes:

> Hi,
>
> I try to compile and install some programs in CentOS 7 which depends on
> LAPACK.
>
> I hope to use LAPACK linked to OpenBLAS, which gives better performance
> compared to Reference BLAS.

OpenBLAS provides its own LAPACK, which has some optimizations and is
probably more recent than RHEl's -- I haven't checked.  You can just
link against that, and the EPEL OB rpms are recent.

> But in CentOS 7, LAPACK packages is linked to Netlib BLAS, not OpenBLAS.
>
> As far as I know, in Arch Linux, their team provides such package
> https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/openblas-lapack/
>
> which provides LAPACK library linked to OpenBLAS.
>
> So I guess it is possible to have such package in CentOS, too.
>
> I know that I can just compile LAPACK + OpenBLAS by myself rather than
> installing pre-compiled packages, but it would be better to have rpm files
> instead..

The linear algebra situation in RHEl/Fedora is unfortunate, but you can
hack around linkage with inefficient BLAS/LAPACK
.
___
epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to epel-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[EPEL-devel] Re: Wrong mpich dependencies?

[Dave Love]

Orion Poplawski  writes:

> On 11/21/2016 06:08 AM, Tuomo Soini wrote:
>> On Mon, 21 Nov 2016 12:52:12 +0100
>> Antonio Trande  wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi all.
>>>
>>> 'petsc' build is failing on epel7 because missing 'mpich-devel';
>>> however, devel package looks provides as
>>> 'mpich-3.0-devel-3.0.4-10.el7.x86_64'.
>>>
>>> https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/2209/16552209/root.log
>>>
>> 
>> Yes. 'hypre' needs fixing.

petsc and hypre build for me in mock -- petsc also requires
mpich-devel%{?_isa}, per guidelines.  It looks as if you build them in
koji currently, they won't install on CentOS/Scientific Linux.

The problem is that Red Hat keep doing this sort of thing with MPI --
openmpi previously, without even working compatibility packages.  It's
not feasible to use their packages on a typical production HPC system
(IMNSHO as someone who made the mistake of trying to).  That's
compounded by things in EPEL like Scalapack needlessly changing ABI.

Rpm packaging keeps looking less attractive, unfortunately.

> FWIW, I've filed https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1397192 for the
> missing provides.

[Contrary to what it says there, the mpich-3.0 packaging has the
provide, but it's obsoleted by 3.2.]
___
epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to epel-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[EPEL-devel] RHEL build system

[Dave Love]

I was reviewing some documentation which includes:

  Redhat for example has a very optimal tool chain which they use for
  their Enterprise product line and it is not available to other
  distributions (or rebuilds) and thus their resulting binaries and
  libraries have been more performant then other Linux distributions we
  have tested.

Can someone say if that's correct?  I assumed building was done
similarly to koji.

(I could experiment, but it seems better to ask where someone presumably
knows, assuming they can say.)
___
epel-devel mailing list
epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

[EPEL-devel] Re: R-3.3.0 errors compiling packages in CentOS 6

[Dave Love]

Rob O'Neale  writes:

> Then edit the FLIBS line in /usr/lib64/R/etc/Makeconf and remove all
> the references to the static libraries /builddir//lib*.a (as per
> the errors above).

It happens I ran into the problem again on an update after forgetting to
report the bug initially.  I did report it this time, and it's fixed in
epel-testing .
___
epel-devel mailing list
epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

[EPEL-devel] Re: using epel-rpm-macros

[Dave Love]

Jason L Tibbitts III 
writes:

> If you have a build dependency on the SCL tools then you're obviously
> not building for EPEL,

Well, I'm building for people running EPEL, and I didn't see this isn't
with packages that depend on anything scl.  The scl stuff needs to be
installed initially, e.g. in copr root parameters, if you're going to
build scl packages at some stage.

(I don't understand why software collections aren't allowed so that more
packages could be contributed.)

> DL> Will the scl bug mentioned not be fixed?
>
> That would be up to whoever maintains the SCL macros.

Of course.  I was thinking in terms of (lack of?) response to a bug
report which might get someone to look to it.
___
epel-devel mailing list
epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

[EPEL-devel] using epel-rpm-macros

[Dave Love]

How is the epel-rpm-macros package supposed to work?  I have
epel-rpm-macros-6-4 installed, which is up-to-date against epel-testing,
and is supposed to make %license work like %doc but doesn't seem to have
any effect.  I get the same errors using %license in %files as without
it installed ("error: File must begin with "/": GPLv3" etc.).  What else
do I need to do?
___
epel-devel mailing list
epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org