https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1760617
--- Comment #49 from Fedora Update System ---
mmc-1.7.9-1.fc32 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 stable repository. If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the C
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1760617
--- Comment #48 from Fedora Update System ---
mmc-1.7.9-1.fc32 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 stable repository. If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the C
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1760617
--- Comment #47 from Fedora Update System ---
mmc-1.7.9-1.fc30 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 stable repository. If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the C
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1760617
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|CURRENTRELEASE |ERRATA
--- Comment #46 from Fe
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1760617
--- Comment #45 from Fedora Update System ---
mmc-1.7.9-1.fc30 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 testing repository. If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1760617
--- Comment #44 from Fedora Update System ---
mmc-1.7.9-1.fc31 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 testing repository. If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1760617
--- Comment #43 from Fedora Update System ---
mmc-1.7.9-1.fc32 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 testing repository. If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1760617
--- Comment #42 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2020-626c7c163e has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-626c7c163e
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1760617
--- Comment #41 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2020-402060f3b7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 30.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-402060f3b7
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1760617
Qianqian Fang changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|POST|CLOSED
Resolution|---
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1760617
--- Comment #40 from Gwyn Ciesla ---
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/mmc
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about chang
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1760617
--- Comment #39 from Qianqian Fang ---
thanks Ankur for approving. I was able to fix the incorrect results with this
patch
https://github.com/fangq/mmc/commit/99312c3c1c8b9cfb932930a932c94f7a11aab976
now I free comfortable to move forward to
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1760617
Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|POST
Flags|fedo
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1760617
--- Comment #37 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) ---
(In reply to Qianqian Fang from comment #36)
> My preference is to get the package out first.
Sure, but what I'm saying is that you do *not* have to build the package for
all arches for the p
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1760617
--- Comment #36 from Qianqian Fang ---
My preference is to get the package out first. I will create a bug ticket in my
mmc github repo, and track this. there is a special combination of flags can
make the results correct, but I will have to ed
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1760617
--- Comment #35 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) ---
(In reply to Qianqian Fang from comment #34)
> thanks. it was not just arm, but all platforms other than i686 and x86_64.
> see
>
> https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4167227
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1760617
--- Comment #34 from Qianqian Fang ---
thanks. it was not just arm, but all platforms other than i686 and x86_64. see
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=41672272
so I did the following:
1. tweaked my Makefile so that it c
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1760617
--- Comment #33 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) ---
That sounds OK. Please take a look at the guidelines, they explain how such
cases should be handled:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_architecture_support
ExcludeAr
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1760617
--- Comment #32 from Qianqian Fang ---
@Ankur, the error was caused by the lack of support of SSE instructions on ARM,
here is part of the log
```
Building built/xorshift128p_rand.o
cc -c -Wall -g -DMCX_EMBED_CL -fno-strict-aliasing -DMMC_US
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1760617
--- Comment #31 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) ---
I forgot to say. Please run a scratch build on koji to test if it builds on all
architectures. When I tried it here, it didn't compile on them all.
koji build rawhide --scratch
--
You are r
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1760617
--- Comment #30 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) ---
Orion answered the query on the mailing list. I've opened another PR that seems
to do the trick. Please have a look. Cheers
```
(ins)>> pkg list
Package Name | Version | Installation director
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1760617
--- Comment #29 from Qianqian Fang ---
to verify the toolbox, simply type "mmc" and enter in Octave, you should see a
short help info.
also, run mmclab('gpuinfo'), this should call mmc.mex and list all supported
OpenCL devices.
because 'whic
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1760617
--- Comment #28 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) ---
Can you give me the complete steps on how to check this please? I built it for
f31, and it loads OK. What should one do next to verify if the mex file can be
used?
(ins)>> pkg list
Package Nam
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1760617
--- Comment #27 from Qianqian Fang ---
@Ankur, thanks. I finally got my virtualbox working again.
I did a few minor changes (re-tagging upstream release, sync source file, and
then drop the branch name), now I was able to build
mmc/octave-mm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1760617
--- Comment #26 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) ---
(In reply to Qianqian Fang from comment #23)
> thanks for the review.
>
> the updated spec file can be found at
>
> https://raw.githubusercontent.com/fangq/fedorapkg/mmclab/mmc.spec
>
> but
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1760617
--- Comment #25 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) ---
I just realised this was still WIP! Sorry about that! I'll report back in a day
or two. It's back on my list now. :)
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1760617
--- Comment #24 from Qianqian Fang ---
@ankur, I'd like to reviving this thread, and fix the issue you suggested - can
you take a look at my last post and let me know 1) what's the correct way to
set octpkglibdir and 2) are other changes suffi
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1760617
--- Comment #23 from Qianqian Fang ---
thanks for the review.
the updated spec file can be found at
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/fangq/fedorapkg/mmclab/mmc.spec
but it does not build any more. the issue is related to how to "%octpkglib
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1760617
--- Comment #22 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) ---
Created attachment 1629741
--> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1629741&action=edit
Build log showing compiler warnings
Build log is attached for your information. While these w
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1760617
--- Comment #21 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) ---
Looks pretty good. A few issues are noted below. Once clarified, this can be
approved.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1760617
--- Comment #20 from Qianqian Fang ---
ok, I added the "Provides:bundled()" statements, see
https://github.com/fangq/fedorapkg/commit/b86488daa0f88931ce15011de13ac898580592d1
but I want to mention that neither "ssemath" nor "cjson" currently
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1760617
--- Comment #19 from Orion Poplawski ---
I don't see how using packaged versions of static/header libraries could be
detrimental.
The roles of the "Provides: bundled()" idiom is to determine who makes use of a
library in any way. The primary
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1760617
--- Comment #18 from Qianqian Fang ---
@Ankur
your points are taken - I have no objection to the current policy regarding
bundling: if a system library already exists and it makes sense to dynamically
link to it to avoid duplication, but embe
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1760617
--- Comment #17 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) ---
(In reply to Qianqian Fang from comment #16)
> to add another clarification - mmc uses these libraries internally for file
> IO of specific inputs and computations purposes, and has no public i
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1760617
--- Comment #16 from Qianqian Fang ---
to add another clarification - mmc uses these libraries internally for file IO
of specific inputs and computations purposes, and has no public interface to
call these libraries externally and allow to use
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1760617
--- Comment #15 from Qianqian Fang ---
@Ankur
I agree with you that it makes software more modular and scalable if all
dependencies can be built as separate packages. However, I think the scenario
here is slightly different.
the 4 external c
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1760617
--- Comment #12 from Qianqian Fang ---
@Orion - agree, the redundant macro is now removed
https://github.com/fangq/fedorapkg/commit/873fba99c50592bd1da840bab3fb489ccc2fbd7b
@Ankur - I also manually added the build flags, as my Makefile does
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1760617
--- Comment #11 from Orion Poplawski ---
Please drop %{project}, just use %{name}.
--
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=1760617
--- Comment #10 from Qianqian Fang ---
@Ankur
thanks for the feedback, my updated spec file and srpm file are updated in the
above post
here are my replies to some of the top issues you spotted, let me know what you
think.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1760617
--- Comment #9 from Qianqian Fang ---
Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/fangq/fedorapkg/mmclab/mmc.spec
SRPM URL: https://kwafoo.coe.neu.edu/~fangq/share/temp/mmc-1.7.9-1.fc30.src.rpm
Description:
MMCLAB is the native MEX version o
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1760617
Qianqian Fang changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: mmc - A GPU
41 matches
Mail list logo
