Re: libsundials-dev

2017-09-18 Thread Dima Kogan
James Tocknell writes: > Using CMAKE_SKIP_INSTALL_PATH or CMAKE_SKIP_RPATH instead of > CMAKE_SKIP_BUILD_PATH appear to produce the same result as > CMAKE_SKIP_BUILD_PATH with respect to RPATHs, so unless there was a bug in > cmake, I'm not sure what I tried previously.

Re: Upcoming new round of R package rebuilds [FWD: [Rd] R-devel object header changes that require reinstalling packages]

2017-09-18 Thread Dirk Eddelbuettel
On 18 September 2017 at 22:41, Charles Plessy wrote: | Hello everybody, | | I just wanted to relay the information that some R packages will need a | rebuild after the next upgrade of R. (see the email forwarded below.) Common knowledge. I referenced it half-a-dozen times in the damned thread

Re: Upcoming new round of R package rebuilds [FWD: [Rd] R-devel object header changes that require reinstalling packages]

2017-09-18 Thread Johannes Ranke
Uff, thanks for letting us know in advance!! I believe this means another fresh repository in CRAN for the corresponding R release... Johannes Am Montag, 18. September 2017, 22:41:04 CEST schrieb Charles Plessy: > Hello everybody, > > I just wanted to relay the information that some R packages

Re: libsundials-dev

2017-09-18 Thread James Tocknell
Using CMAKE_SKIP_INSTALL_PATH or CMAKE_SKIP_RPATH instead of CMAKE_SKIP_BUILD_PATH appear to produce the same result as CMAKE_SKIP_BUILD_PATH with respect to RPATHs, so unless there was a bug in cmake, I'm not sure what I tried previously. James On 18 September 2017 at 19:41, James Tocknell

Re: libsundials-dev

2017-09-18 Thread James Tocknell
Building with gbp buildpackage --git-builder='debuild -i -I -uc -us' --git-no-pbuilder (so no cowbuilder) also produces libraries with no RPATHs, it does however produce new lintian warnings (compared to cowbuilder) about missing copyright entries for LICENSE, README and config/FindMPI.cmake. The

Re: Python 3 Statsmodels & Pandas

2017-09-18 Thread Stuart Prescott
Hi Diane, On Sunday, 17 September 2017 22:14:18 AEST Diane Trout wrote: > I just did it that way because it was the least disruptive change I > could make that would let me build and test the package. Sure, that's entirely sensible. > In my experience I'm much more likely to to notice a build

Re: libsundials-dev

2017-09-18 Thread Dima Kogan
James Tocknell writes: > I looked at the RPATH change, lintian doesn't show any RPATH warnings > for me, I also ran readelf on the shared libraries, no RPATH or > RUNPATH. I'm building via gbp and cowbuilder on amd64 (with sid as the > target distro), could that be the