https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=739398
--- Comment #51 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org ---
openblas-0.2.11-1.el7 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 7.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/openblas-0.2.11-1.el7
--
You are receiving this mail
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=739398
Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+
--
You
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=739398
--- Comment #50 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com ---
Git done (by process-git-requests).
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=739398
Susi Lehtola susi.leht...@iki.fi changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs?
---
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=739398
Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski domi...@greysector.net changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks|505154 (FE-SCITECH) |
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=739398
Milan Bouchet-Valat nalimi...@club.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nalimi...@club.fr
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=739398
--- Comment #48 from Susi Lehtola susi.leht...@iki.fi ---
No, I hadn't thought about it at all...
I believe we can't make the 64-bit interface the default, because this needs to
be taken care of in the user side as well.
Anyway, patches are
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=739398
Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Fixed In Version|openblas-0.2.5-10.el5
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=739398
Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Fixed In Version|openblas-0.2.5-10.fc19
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=739398
Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Fixed In Version|openblas-0.2.5-10.fc18
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=739398
Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ON_QA |CLOSED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=739398
--- Comment #38 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org ---
openblas-0.2.5-10.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/openblas-0.2.5-10.fc19
--
You are receiving this mail because:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=739398
--- Comment #39 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org ---
openblas-0.2.5-10.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/openblas-0.2.5-10.el6
--
You are receiving this mail
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=739398
--- Comment #40 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org ---
openblas-0.2.5-10.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/openblas-0.2.5-10.fc18
--
You are receiving this mail because:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=739398
--- Comment #41 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org ---
openblas-0.2.5-10.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/openblas-0.2.5-10.el5
--
You are receiving this mail
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=739398
--- Comment #42 from Susi Lehtola susi.leht...@iki.fi ---
FYI, this was hanging around since I was waiting for upstream to fix a rather
nasty bug [1], and only recently received information that the bug is in the
OpenBLAS LAPACK functions. I've
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=739398
--- Comment #37 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org ---
openblas-0.2.5-7.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 testing repository.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=739398
Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=739398
--- Comment #31 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com ---
Git done (by process-git-requests).
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=739398
--- Comment #32 from Susi Lehtola susi.leht...@iki.fi ---
For reference, I'm not building any non-x86(_64) binaries since upstream only
supports x86 and Loongson; they don't have access to ia64, ppc, sparc and power
architecture
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=739398
Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=739398
--- Comment #33 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org ---
openblas-0.2.5-7.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/openblas-0.2.5-7.el6
--
You are receiving
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=739398
--- Comment #34 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org ---
openblas-0.2.5-7.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/openblas-0.2.5-7.fc18
--
You are receiving this
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=739398
--- Comment #35 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org ---
openblas-0.2.5-7.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/openblas-0.2.5-7.el5
--
You are receiving
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=739398
--- Comment #36 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org ---
openblas-0.2.5-7.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/openblas-0.2.5-7.fc17
--
You are receiving this
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=739398
Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski domi...@greysector.net changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review?
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=739398
Susi Lehtola susi.leht...@iki.fi changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=739398
--- Comment #25 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski domi...@greysector.net ---
Go with environment modules, then. By using different SONAMEs, you're forcing
users to relink if they want to switch from serial to parallel. Why do
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=739398
--- Comment #26 from Susi Lehtola susi.leht...@iki.fi ---
Coming from a high-performance computing background, I just listed the reasons
above in comment #24.
Even the environment modules solution is really a pain in the ass,
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=739398
--- Comment #27 from Susi Lehtola susi.leht...@iki.fi ---
So, the reasoning boils down to a very simple fact: whether a program will be
SMP is determined at compile time. Thus the choice of the flavor of library to
use should also
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=739398
--- Comment #28 from Susi Lehtola susi.leht...@iki.fi ---
(In reply to comment #23)
Actually, I think it's wrong to resolve the file conflicts by changing the
library SONAMEs. All versions, irrespective of the thread options,
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=739398
--- Comment #23 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski domi...@greysector.net ---
Created attachment 677085
-- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=677085action=edit
parallel installable libopenblas versions with same
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=739398
--- Comment #24 from Susi Lehtola susi.leht...@iki.fi ---
Then ATLAS does it wrong.
Putting the choice on system level is giving you the choice between a hammer
and a sledgehammer, when you might want to use a hammer for some
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=739398
Robert Szalai r.sza...@bris.ac.uk changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=739398
--- Comment #22 from Susi Lehtola susi.leht...@iki.fi ---
(In reply to comment #21)
Would it be possible to produce a 64bit integer variant say openblas64 by
adding INTERFACE64=1?
Yes, it would. But I figure the 4-byte integer
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=739398
--- Comment #20 from Susi Lehtola susi.leht...@iki.fi ---
Turns out the problem was that in the OpenMP version you still need
USE_THREADS=1. Fixed in the above.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=739398
--- Comment #19 from Susi Lehtola susi.leht...@iki.fi ---
I've fixed everything else except the unused-direct-shlib-dependency stuff.
I'll contact upstream about it.
http://theory.physics.helsinki.fi/~jzlehtol/rpms/openblas.spec
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=739398
--- Comment #18 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski domi...@greysector.net ---
Thanks, it builds on EPEL-6 fine now.
rpmlint output for rawhide build:
openblas-threads.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) pthreads - threads,
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=739398
--- Comment #14 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski domi...@greysector.net ---
Build fails on EL-6/x86_64 at %prep stage:
Executing(%prep): /bin/sh -e /home/rathann/build/tmp/rpm-tmp.MbqSqa
...
+ mkdir netliblapack
+ cd
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=739398
--- Comment #15 from Susi Lehtola susi.leht...@iki.fi ---
Nope, no typo - liblapacke contains the C interfaces.
$ rpm -qf /usr/lib64/liblapacke.a
lapack-static-3.4.1-2.fc18.x86_64
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=739398
--- Comment #16 from Susi Lehtola susi.leht...@iki.fi ---
Looks like lapacke was integrated in lapack only in version 3.4.0, and it is
thus unavailable in EPEL, which only has 3.2.1 (EL6) vs 3.0 (EL5).
Now this does raise once
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=739398
--- Comment #17 from Susi Lehtola susi.leht...@iki.fi ---
Well, I remembered that lapacke support can be turned off. Here's a version
that builds also in EPEL.
http://theory.physics.helsinki.fi/~jzlehtol/rpms/openblas.spec
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=739398
--- Comment #13 from Susi Lehtola susi.leht...@iki.fi ---
... but don't include the reference implementations of functions that have an
optimized implementation in openblas.
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=739398
--- Comment #12 from Susi Lehtola susi.leht...@iki.fi ---
Use system version of LAPACK.
http://theory.physics.helsinki.fi/~jzlehtol/rpms/openblas.spec
http://theory.physics.helsinki.fi/~jzlehtol/rpms/openblas-0.2.5-3.fc18.src.rpm
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=739398
--- Comment #11 from Susi Lehtola susi.leht...@iki.fi ---
Dominik - could you approve the review?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=739398
--- Comment #10 from Susi Lehtola susi.leht...@iki.fi ---
Oh, I fixed the build issue on i386 and RHEL5 as well.
http://theory.physics.helsinki.fi/~jzlehtol/rpms/openblas.spec
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=739398
--- Comment #9 from Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi ---
(In reply to comment #8)
I'll be taking a two-week vacation now, so I won't be able to look at this
until I get back.
Whoops...
Anyway, I have rebased the package to
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=739398
Alex Lancaster al...@users.sourceforge.net changed:
What|Removed |Added
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=739398
--- Comment #8 from Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi 2011-10-13 15:51:48
EDT ---
(In reply to comment #7)
Minimum
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=739398
--- Comment #5 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski domi...@greysector.net
2011-10-05 17:29:01 EDT ---
Builds in mock
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=739398
--- Comment #6 from Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi 2011-10-05 18:38:54
EDT ---
(In reply to comment #5)
The gcc command
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=739398
Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski domi...@greysector.net changed:
What|Removed |Added
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=739398
--- Comment #4 from Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi 2011-09-21 07:23:44
EDT ---
FYI: I've already asked upstream to soname
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=739398
--- Comment #1 from Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi 2011-09-18 12:37:23
EDT ---
There is one slight problem with the
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=739398
Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi changed:
What|Removed |Added
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=739398
--- Comment #2 from Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi 2011-09-18 18:13:13
EDT ---
I ran a series of matrix diagonalization
56 matches
Mail list logo
