El 7/5/24 a las 19:43, Uecker, Martin escribió:
Yes, if you do not mind to do the work, please update bullseye.
That would be much appreciated.
Hi. The uploads for bart and bart-cuda have been accepted for
bullseye-proposed-updates.
So I pushed the pending changes to salsa.
One thing I
Am Dienstag, dem 07.05.2024 um 19:23 +0200 schrieb Santiago Vila:
> El 7/5/24 a las 18:50, Uecker, Martin escribió:
> > Am Dienstag, dem 07.05.2024 um 17:59 +0200 schrieb Santiago Vila:
> > > El 1/1/23 a las 16:55, Uecker, Martin escribió:
> > > In the meantime, I became member of debian-med, so
El 7/5/24 a las 18:50, Uecker, Martin escribió:
Am Dienstag, dem 07.05.2024 um 17:59 +0200 schrieb Santiago Vila:
El 1/1/23 a las 16:55, Uecker, Martin escribió:
In the meantime, I became member of debian-med, so in theory,
I could fix this myself via team upload. Would you prefer
that I take
Am Dienstag, dem 07.05.2024 um 17:59 +0200 schrieb Santiago Vila:
> El 1/1/23 a las 16:55, Uecker, Martin escribió:
> > I can apply the patch, but I do not have much time now.
> > Is there some urgency?
>
> Hello. A lot of time passed without activity on this bug.
>
> In the meantime, I became
El 1/1/23 a las 16:55, Uecker, Martin escribió:
I can apply the patch, but I do not have much time now.
Is there some urgency?
Hello. A lot of time passed without activity on this bug.
In the meantime, I became member of debian-med, so in theory,
I could fix this myself via team upload. Would
El 1/1/23 a las 16:55, Uecker, Martin escribió:
I can apply the patch, but I do not have much time now.
Is there some urgency?
Not really. There will be several more point releases of bullseye
before it becomes LTS. I just hope that we can fix this before that.
Thanks a lot.
Am 01.01.23 um 16:55 schrieb Uecker, Martin:
This is likely a numerical error caused by reordering a
floating point sum by parallelization. It is not worth
spending time on it.
I can apply the patch, but I do not have much time now.
Is there some urgency?
Not from my side, I just tried to
>
>
> Am 01.01.23 um 15:55 schrieb Uecker, Martin:
> >
> > One could just relax (or simply remove) the test from bullseye
> > or packport the version bookworm.
>
> I guess that would be applying 0003-relax-failing-unit-test.patch
> to the Bullseye version.
Yes, this should do it.
>
> > The
El 1/1/23 a las 16:27, Bernhard Übelacker escribió:
If it might be of any help - my system is a "AMD Ryzen 7 1700",
the qemu VM runs with "-enable-kvm -cpu host -smp 16".
By locking the process to just a single cpu I do not get any failures:
taskset -c 0 bash -c "while true; do ./test_nufft
Hello,
thanks for your immediate responses.
Am 01.01.23 um 15:55 schrieb Uecker, Martin:
One could just relax (or simply remove) the test from bullseye
or packport the version bookworm.
I guess that would be applying 0003-relax-failing-unit-test.patch
to the Bullseye version.
The wine
El 1/1/23 a las 15:39, Bernhard Übelacker escribió:
I could reproduce this failure in a bullseye VM.
There the "test_nufft_adjoint" fails in about 1.2 % of the runs.
Hi. Such failure rate differs a lot from what I get, which is
about 50% in some systems (which is why I believe we should fix
One could just relax (or simply remove) the test from bullseye
or packport the version bookworm.
The wine code is broken (it violates the effective types
rules of ISO C).
Martin
Am Sonntag, dem 01.01.2023 um 15:39 +0100 schrieb Bernhard Übelacker:
> Dear Maintainer,
> I could reproduce this
Dear Maintainer,
I could reproduce this failure in a bullseye VM.
There the "test_nufft_adjoint" fails in about 1.2 % of the runs.
Attached diff helps to make it more visible.
It looks like the float comparison fails because the
limit of "1.E-6f" is slightly not enough.
If interpret following
Package: src:bart
Version: 0.6.00-3
Fixed: 0.8.00-3
Severity: serious
Tags: ftbfs
Dear maintainer:
During a rebuild of all packages in bullseye, your package failed to build:
[...]
debian/rules binary-indep
dh
14 matches
Mail list logo
