Dear Julien,
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 10:29:55PM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote:
To fix this issue, just make sure that the system uses the same
version of the header files as the version of the run-time library.
Specifically, this means if Armadillo 2.4.2 is used, both the headers
_and_
On 23 December 2011 02:19, Kumar Appaiah aku...@debian.org wrote:
After some discussion with upstream here is the summary:
- Upstream will not raise the soname, since this, in their view, is
does not warrant one. Their opinion is that armadillo's ABI isn't
really for direct use by the end
On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 10:19:46 -0600, Kumar Appaiah wrote:
Dear Julien,
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 10:29:55PM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote:
To fix this issue, just make sure that the system uses the same
version of the header files as the version of the run-time library.
On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 06:04:03PM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote:
Now, this breaks existing installs of dolfin, so this is not an
option. I am now wondering what the best course of action is. Do I
create a new named package, or manually update the soname locally to
Debian? Or, do I request
On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 11:08:13AM -0600, Kumar Appaiah wrote:
So I haven't actually *checked*, but from what I understood of this
thread the ABI changes were compatible, which means there is and was no
reason to bump the SONAME, only the version in the shlibs packaging
metadata, for the
On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 11:12:45 -0600, Kumar Appaiah wrote:
On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 11:08:13AM -0600, Kumar Appaiah wrote:
So I haven't actually *checked*, but from what I understood of this
thread the ABI changes were compatible, which means there is and was no
reason to bump the
On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 06:15:04PM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote:
On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 11:12:45 -0600, Kumar Appaiah wrote:
On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 11:08:13AM -0600, Kumar Appaiah wrote:
So I haven't actually *checked*, but from what I understood of this
thread the ABI changes were
Hi.
I just uploaded a package to (hopefully) fix this bug. Thanks for
pointing it out.
Kumar
--
Kumar Appaiah
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 12:32:05 -0500, Andreas Kloeckner wrote:
On Wed, 21 Dec 2011 02:46:51 +1000, Conrad Sand conradsand...@gmail.com
wrote:
In bug 651997
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=651997
libarmadillo2 is listed as version 2.2.5+dfsg-1, which implies that
the
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 12:46:46 +0100, Johannes Ring wrote:
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 10:37 AM, Andreas Kloeckner inf...@tiker.net wrote:
Did, and it helped. Thanks very much!
Good!
This being as it is, could you upload a new package with tightened
dependencies?
The dependency on
[Adding Kumar (maintainer of Armadillo) in Cc]
On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 10:16 AM, Julien Cristau
julien.cris...@logilab.fr wrote:
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 12:46:46 +0100, Johannes Ring wrote:
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 10:37 AM, Andreas Kloeckner inf...@tiker.net wrote:
This being as it is, could
I am CCing upstream here.
Dear Conrad,
Was an shlib bump warranted, based on your view of
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=651997 ?
Thanks.
Kumar
On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 11:35:53AM +0100, Johannes Ring wrote:
[Adding Kumar (maintainer of Armadillo) in Cc]
On Tue, Dec 20,
In bug 651997
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=651997
libarmadillo2 is listed as version 2.2.5+dfsg-1, which implies that
the header files for armadillo have been updated to a later version,
but not the run-time library. Otherwise it's impossible to obtain the
undefined symbol:
On Wed, 21 Dec 2011 02:46:51 +1000, Conrad Sand conradsand...@gmail.com wrote:
In bug 651997
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=651997
libarmadillo2 is listed as version 2.2.5+dfsg-1, which implies that
the header files for armadillo have been updated to a later version,
but not
Hi Andreas,
Thank you for your report, but I couldn't reproduce your bug.
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 11:34 PM, Andreas Kloeckner inf...@tiker.net wrote:
When I run any one of the simple fenics demos, I get this error message:
ImportError: /usr/lib/libdolfin.so.1.0: undefined symbol:
On Mon, 19 Dec 2011 09:54:09 +0100, Johannes Ring joha...@simula.no wrote:
Hi Andreas,
Thank you for your report, but I couldn't reproduce your bug.
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 11:34 PM, Andreas Kloeckner inf...@tiker.net wrote:
When I run any one of the simple fenics demos, I get this error
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 10:37 AM, Andreas Kloeckner inf...@tiker.net wrote:
Did, and it helped. Thanks very much!
Good!
This being as it is, could you upload a new package with tightened
dependencies?
The dependency on libarmadillo2 is added automatically by
${shlibs:Depends}. I guess I
On Mon, 19 Dec 2011 12:46:46 +0100, Johannes Ring joha...@simula.no wrote:
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 10:37 AM, Andreas Kloeckner inf...@tiker.net wrote:
Did, and it helped. Thanks very much!
Good!
This being as it is, could you upload a new package with tightened
dependencies?
The
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 3:50 PM, Andreas Kloeckner inf...@tiker.net wrote:
Hmm, I feel like automatic shared library dependencies should have been
able to catch this, i.e. someone is supposed to have done something with
the soname at some point--I'm just not sure what... :)
Yes, I agree. It is
On Mon, 19 Dec 2011 16:13:00 +0100, Johannes Ring joha...@simula.no wrote:
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 3:50 PM, Andreas Kloeckner inf...@tiker.net wrote:
Hmm, I feel like automatic shared library dependencies should have been
able to catch this, i.e. someone is supposed to have done something
Package: python-dolfin
Version: 1.0.0-1
Severity: grave
Justification: renders package unusable
Dear Maintainer,
When I run any one of the simple fenics demos, I get this error message:
ImportError: /usr/lib/libdolfin.so.1.0: undefined symbol: wrapper_dgesv_
For definiteness, I used this
21 matches
Mail list logo
