Re: Bug#675207: [Dolfin] Please binNMU python-ufc against latest swig
On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 10:40 AM, Julien Cristau jcris...@debian.org wrote:
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 10:32:56 +0200, Johannes Ring wrote:
On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 4:46 PM, Julien Cristau
julien.cris...@logilab.fr wrote:
If dolfin only works with the version of swig it was built against, that
needs to be reflected in the package dependencies.
Okay, but I'm unsure how to do that. Currently I have Build-Depends:
swig2.0 in the source package and Depends: swig2.0 in the binary
package python-dolfin. What should I put there instead? Are you
suggesting that I should add something like {Build-}Depends: swig2.0
(= 2.0.7), swig2.0 ( 2.0.8)? Wouldn't that require me to do a new
upload when swig 2.0.8 is added in the future? If so, is that any
better than doing binNMU's?
I'm suggesting you should leave your build-depends alone, check at
build-time what the swig version is, and generate a Depends on that
(upstream) version. binNMUs would still work, and you wouldn't get an
installable but broken package.
Thanks Julien and sorry about the late reply. I'm not sure how I end
up doing things but I'll keep your suggestion in mind.
Johannes
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
http://lists.debian.org/caljqy_fhn-ujh4hjp0dlj5ke0imyg6pnk7zf09zzk_z_xxp...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Bug#675207: [Dolfin] Please binNMU python-ufc against latest swig
On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 4:46 PM, Julien Cristau
julien.cris...@logilab.fr wrote:
If dolfin only works with the version of swig it was built against, that
needs to be reflected in the package dependencies.
Okay, but I'm unsure how to do that. Currently I have Build-Depends:
swig2.0 in the source package and Depends: swig2.0 in the binary
package python-dolfin. What should I put there instead? Are you
suggesting that I should add something like {Build-}Depends: swig2.0
(= 2.0.7), swig2.0 ( 2.0.8)? Wouldn't that require me to do a new
upload when swig 2.0.8 is added in the future? If so, is that any
better than doing binNMU's?
Johannes
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
http://lists.debian.org/CALjQY_FCOtcUcMOz1=P_wiK5YidAKiSUFZvkzwDZ3ZR=xng...@mail.gmail.com
Re: [Dolfin] Please binNMU python-ufc against latest swig
On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 10:38 PM, Anders Logg l...@simula.no wrote: Does it work if you remove those checks in dolfin/site-packages/dolfin/compilemodules/compilemodule.py dolfin/site-packages/dolfin/compilemodules/jit.py ? Yes, it works fine, but I also had to remove the check in ufc_utils/build.py in UFC. If so, we might turn those into warnings. Yes, maybe that is a good idea. Johannes -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CALjQY_F2k4HdJ==ckxsfkczqcbu5ptyzau+ogpeaykn-yub...@mail.gmail.com
Re: [Dolfin] Please binNMU python-ufc against latest swig
On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 1:45 PM, Johan Hake hake@gmail.com wrote: On 06/14/2012 09:46 AM, Johannes Ring wrote: On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 10:38 PM, Anders Loggl...@simula.no wrote: Does it work if you remove those checks in dolfin/site-packages/dolfin/compilemodules/compilemodule.py dolfin/site-packages/dolfin/compilemodules/jit.py ? Yes, it works fine, but I also had to remove the check in ufc_utils/build.py in UFC. If so, we might turn those into warnings. Not sure why we would like to do that? If we are going to ship precompiled binaries we better make sure all packages including JIT compiled stuff are using the same SWIG version. We have not got any reports of this not working (because we have prevented it), but I think it would be gambling to allow this. If an error occur it will most probably be very cryptic and implode the user experience. Good point. Can't this be handled by some elaborated debain version logic? The simplest solution would be to rebuild UFC and DOLFIN whenever a new version of SWIG is added in Debian. That's why i requested a binNMU. Not sure if it would be possible to automate this in some way. Johannes -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/caljqy_fu4svhccgznqf+xv3n3p6xkboexcbump0muubtau_...@mail.gmail.com
Re: [Dolfin] Please binNMU python-ufc against latest swig
On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 9:15 PM, Anders Logg l...@simula.no wrote: Does this break because we check the SWIG version in the JIT compiler, or because it actually breaks (with some link error)? It is the version check that makes it break. This is the error message: OSError: PyDOLFIN was not compiled with the present version of swig. Install swig version 2.0.5 or recompiled PyDOLFIN with present swig Both UFC and DOLFIN was built with SWIG 2.0.5, while 2.0.7 is the current version in Debian unstable. Johannes -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/caljqy_fyerltdw1xqmmn-o8jqgx_ncdxa+gfg43uswefavn...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Please binNMU python-ufc against latest swig
On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 7:30 PM, Julien Cristau jcris...@debian.org wrote: On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 08:43:54 +0200, Johannes Ring wrote: On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 2:05 AM, Cyril Brulebois k...@debian.org wrote: Johannes Ring joha...@simula.no (31/05/2012): python-ufc needs to be rebuilt against the latest swig (2.0.7). Please binNMU it. nmu python-ufc_2.0.5-2 . ALL . -m 'Rebuild against swig 2.0.7, see #675207.' if this package has such strict dependencies on swig, why aren't they exposed through strict package dependencies? You mean by adding something like swig2.0 (= 2.0.7) in Build-Depends? The thing is that UFC only depends on SWIG = 2.0.0, however, it will always need to be rebuilt whenever a new SWIG release enters the archive. Can this be automated or will I need to request a binNMU each time? That sounds broken. Why is that necessary? When you run DOLFIN, efficient low-level C++ code (UFC) is automatically generated. This is done using SWIG and the SWIG version needs to be the same that was used when building UFC and DOLFIN. I'm Cc'ing the DOLFIN list to get more input on this. Johannes -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/caljqy_fpj+9tivmcf2or9tr6socspko3fyssgkg1s4ogwuc...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Please binNMU python-ufc against latest swig
On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 2:05 AM, Cyril Brulebois k...@debian.org wrote: Johannes Ring joha...@simula.no (31/05/2012): python-ufc needs to be rebuilt against the latest swig (2.0.7). Please binNMU it. nmu python-ufc_2.0.5-2 . ALL . -m 'Rebuild against swig 2.0.7, see #675207.' if this package has such strict dependencies on swig, why aren't they exposed through strict package dependencies? You mean by adding something like swig2.0 (= 2.0.7) in Build-Depends? The thing is that UFC only depends on SWIG = 2.0.0, however, it will always need to be rebuilt whenever a new SWIG release enters the archive. Can this be automated or will I need to request a binNMU each time? Thanks, Johannes -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/caljqy_gxk3rlkg09sb6kjxhq+ywbrjq-hsj-d5nnjtg1txv...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Bug#675207: Please binNMU python-ufc against latest swig
On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 7:49 AM, Mathieu Malaterre mathieu.malate...@gmail.com wrote: If I may, I believe this is due to: http://bugs.debian.org/674263 Any binary build with swig 2.0.5 or 2.0.6 should be rebuild IMHO. I agree, considering the regressions in SWIG 2.0.5 and 2.0.6, however, the problem in #675207 is not related to that. Johannes -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/caljqy_gatg08x_9neqczpqap4ocz43khdoxbxmpodv4gedg...@mail.gmail.com
Please binNMU python-ufc against latest swig
Hello, python-ufc needs to be rebuilt against the latest swig (2.0.7). Please binNMU it. nmu python-ufc_2.0.5-2 . ALL . -m 'Rebuild against swig 2.0.7, see #675207.' Thanks. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/caljqy_fovznrvxx77sefeepwzchrpsczpzvwo1yxozk4fjr...@mail.gmail.com
Re: ongoing slepc/petsc transition
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 11:49 PM, Adam C Powell IV hazel...@debian.org wrote: Can't speak for the others (dolfin, feel++, gmsh). DOLFIN 1.0.0 works with PETSc/SLEPc 3.2, only minor changes are needed in the Debian files. I can make a new upload soon. Johannes -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CALjQY_H2GOtjdx13Crs=CtqFr45ZqcT_76NRUnKXBy1z=w7...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Please binNMU ufc against latest swig
On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 6:06 PM, Luk Claesl...@debian.org wrote: Johannes Ring wrote: [ Please Cc me as I'm not subscribed to the list. ] Hi, ufc needs to be rebuilt against the latest swig (1.3.39). Please binNMU it. Architecture: all packages cannot be binNMUed. Please have the maintainer (in Cc) upload a new version. Sorry, my fault. It is actually python-ufc (Architecture: any) that should be binNMUed, not ufc. Could you please do that? Thanks, Johannes -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Please binNMU ufc against latest swig
[ Please Cc me as I'm not subscribed to the list. ] Hi, ufc needs to be rebuilt against the latest swig (1.3.39). Please binNMU it. nmu ufc_1.1.2-1 . ALL . -m 'Rebuild against swig 1.3.39, see #543097.' Thanks, Johannes Ring -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
