https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1040517
Susi Lehtola changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks|505154 (FE-SCITECH) |
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.r
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1040517
Bug 1040517 depends on bug 1109390, which changed state.
Bug 1109390 Summary: Review Request: llvm33 - Versioned LLVM
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1109390
What|Removed |Added
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1040517
Bug 1040517 depends on bug 1109390, which changed state.
Bug 1109390 Summary: Review Request: llvm3.3 - Versioned LLVM
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1109390
What|Removed |Added
---
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1040517
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Fixed In Version|julia-0.3.1-2.fc21 |julia-0.3.1-2.fc20
--- Comment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1040517
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ON_QA |CLOSED
Fixed In Version|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1040517
--- Comment #85 from Fedora Update System ---
julia-0.3.1-2.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/julia-0.3.1-2.fc20
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1040517
--- Comment #84 from Fedora Update System ---
julia-0.3.1-2.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/julia-0.3.1-2.fc21
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1040517
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
--- Comment #83 from Fed
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1040517
--- Comment #82 from Fedora Update System ---
julia-0.3.1-1.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/julia-0.3.1-1.fc21
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1040517
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED
--
You are receiving
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1040517
Bug 1040517 depends on bug 1108765, which changed state.
Bug 1108765 Summary: Review Request: dSFMT - Double precision SIMD-oriented
Fast Mersenne Twister
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1108765
What|Removed
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1040517
--- Comment #81 from Milan Bouchet-Valat ---
(In reply to Paulo Andrade from comment #80)
> (In reply to Milan Bouchet-Valat from comment #78)
> > Great! Thank you Paulo, and all the people who helped me finish this Julia
> > package, and by t
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1040517
--- Comment #80 from Paulo Andrade
---
(In reply to Milan Bouchet-Valat from comment #78)
> Great! Thank you Paulo, and all the people who helped me finish this Julia
> package, and by the way learn RPM packaging. :-)
You're welcome :)
>
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1040517
--- Comment #79 from Jon Ciesla ---
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=1040517
Jon Ciesla changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+
--
You are receiving this m
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1040517
Milan Bouchet-Valat changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #78 fro
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1040517
Paulo Andrade changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #77 from P
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1040517
Paulo Andrade changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #76 from P
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1040517
--- Comment #75 from Milan Bouchet-Valat ---
(In reply to Paulo Andrade from comment #74)
> Good observation, now on my todo list whenever checking a package :)
> Try this:
[...]
>
> I personally rarely, if ever use "%doc NAME", to avoid surp
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1040517
--- Comment #74 from Paulo Andrade
---
(In reply to Milan Bouchet-Valat from comment #73)
> (In reply to Paulo Andrade from comment #72)
> > (In reply to Milan Bouchet-Valat from comment #71)
> > > The test suite already checks that AFAIK. Bu
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1040517
--- Comment #73 from Milan Bouchet-Valat ---
(In reply to Paulo Andrade from comment #72)
> (In reply to Milan Bouchet-Valat from comment #71)
> > The test suite already checks that AFAIK. But then I guess it's run when
> > dSFMT-devel is stil
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1040517
--- Comment #72 from Paulo Andrade
---
(In reply to Milan Bouchet-Valat from comment #71)
> (In reply to Paulo Andrade from comment #70)
> > At first I only suggest this pseudo patch to the spec:
> >
> > -rm -R %{buildroot}%{_docdir}/julia
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1040517
--- Comment #71 from Milan Bouchet-Valat ---
(In reply to Paulo Andrade from comment #70)
> At first I only suggest this pseudo patch to the spec:
>
> -rm -R %{buildroot}%{_docdir}/julia/html/_sources
>
> Because there is that "big" "View
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1040517
--- Comment #70 from Paulo Andrade
---
(In reply to Milan Bouchet-Valat from comment #69)
> (In reply to Paulo Andrade from comment #68)
> > You probably saw I posted to devel@ earlier today about issues
> > with rpath/runpath. I was waiting
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1040517
--- Comment #69 from Milan Bouchet-Valat ---
(In reply to Paulo Andrade from comment #68)
> You probably saw I posted to devel@ earlier today about issues
> with rpath/runpath. I was waiting for some comment on that
> before replying, but none
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1040517
--- Comment #68 from Paulo Andrade
---
You probably saw I posted to devel@ earlier today about issues
with rpath/runpath. I was waiting for some comment on that
before replying, but none so far...
> > > > 1) I believe none of the installed M
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1040517
--- Comment #67 from Milan Bouchet-Valat ---
(In reply to Paulo Andrade from comment #65)
> > > 1) I believe none of the installed Makefile files are required
> > > (or functional):
> > > $ find /usr/share/julia/ -name Makefile
> > > /usr/shar
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1040517
--- Comment #66 from Michael Schwendt ---
> %files doc
> %doc %{_docdir}/julia/
Even shorter:
%files doc
%{_docdir}/julia/
That's because %_docdir is in default %__docdir_path list.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on t
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1040517
--- Comment #65 from Paulo Andrade
---
> > 1) I believe none of the installed Makefile files are required
> > (or functional):
> > $ find /usr/share/julia/ -name Makefile
> > /usr/share/julia/test/perf/micro/Makefile
> > /usr/share/julia/test
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1040517
--- Comment #64 from Milan Bouchet-Valat ---
(In reply to Paulo Andrade from comment #63)
> I did a normal rpmbuild and installed it, and a fedora-review
> from generated srpm with my initial proposed patch, to ensure
> it was building.
> Some
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1040517
Paulo Andrade changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #63 from Paulo A
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1040517
--- Comment #62 from Milan Bouchet-Valat ---
Thanks! I think I did not see the failure because I've not run the updates for
a few weeks on my F20 box. IIUC this option was removed in systemtap 2.5. I've
filed a bug against libuv, and added the
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1040517
Paulo Andrade changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andr
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1040517
--- Comment #60 from Milan Bouchet-Valat ---
Would anybody finish the review? :-p
--
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=1040517
--- Comment #59 from Milan Bouchet-Valat ---
OK, here's the review, which looks mostly OK to me. A few remarks:
- the only Fail is about a dist tag which must be due to my box's setup.
- I can fix the Issue about unversioned .so files, but tha
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1040517
--- Comment #58 from Milan Bouchet-Valat ---
Hold on, I've found the problem with fedora-review: it was not finding
dSFMT-devel, but the error message was really obscure. I'll post the review in
a moment.
--
You are receiving this mail becau
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1040517
--- Comment #57 from Milan Bouchet-Valat ---
(In reply to Michael Schwendt from comment #56)
> Have you pointed the fedora-review tool at this ticket yet? ->
> "fedora-review -b 1040517"
I wish I was able to do it myself, but I'm hitting a bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1040517
--- Comment #56 from Michael Schwendt ---
Have you pointed the fedora-review tool at this ticket yet? -> "fedora-review
-b 1040517"
After a brief look at the spec file, I think there are a couple of places that
would benefit from trying to pe
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1040517
--- Comment #55 from Milan Bouchet-Valat ---
Anybody willing to do the final review? It's been 10 months since I first
opened this request! :-) Now I think it's OK at last.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for t
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1040517
Milan Bouchet-Valat changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||505154 (FE-SCITECH)
Referenced
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1040517
--- Comment #54 from Milan Bouchet-Valat ---
I'm eventually going to use LLVM 3.4 instead of requiring a new llvm3.3
package. Julia developers are willing to support several versions of LLVM,
including 3.4 and 3.5.
So the package is ready for
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1040517
Bug 1040517 depends on bug 1109390, which changed state.
Bug 1109390 Summary: Review Request: llvm3.3 - Versioned LLVM
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1109390
What|Removed |Added
---
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1040517
--- Comment #53 from Milan Bouchet-Valat ---
dSFMT is not linked to, it's dlopened at runtime by Julia, this is why it's not
picked by RPM. Will add it to Requires.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1040517
Christopher Meng changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||i...@cicku.me
--- Comment #52 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1040517
Robert Knight changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kni...@princeton.edu
--- Comment #51
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1040517
--- Comment #50 from Milan Bouchet-Valat ---
Orion, what's your opinion on bug 1109390? Packaging Julia is stuck on this
issue and I'd like to know if I need to find something else.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC l
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1040517
--- Comment #49 from Milan Bouchet-Valat ---
OK, I think the package is now ready for the final review. The new version
works, though it needs dSFMT (bug 1108765) and llvm3.3 (bug 1109390) to be
included. The only bundled libraries are Rmath a
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1040517
--- Comment #48 from Milan Bouchet-Valat ---
(In reply to Baurzhan Muftakhidinov from comment #46)
> I have tried already, took a gcc from software collections
>
> https://copr.fedoraproject.org/coprs/baurzhanm/julia-epel6/monitor/
>
> You c
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1040517
--- Comment #47 from Baurzhan Muftakhidinov ---
(In reply to Milan Bouchet-Valat from comment #45)
> (In reply to Baurzhan Muftakhidinov from comment #44)
> > (In reply to Milan Bouchet-Valat from comment #43)
> > >
> > > Now it would be good
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1040517
--- Comment #46 from Baurzhan Muftakhidinov ---
(In reply to Milan Bouchet-Valat from comment #45)
> (In reply to Baurzhan Muftakhidinov from comment #44)
> > (In reply to Milan Bouchet-Valat from comment #43)
> > >
> > > Now it would be good
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1040517
--- Comment #45 from Milan Bouchet-Valat ---
(In reply to Baurzhan Muftakhidinov from comment #44)
> (In reply to Milan Bouchet-Valat from comment #43)
> >
> > Now it would be good to understand why it doesn't work for EPEL6.
>
> julia depen
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1040517
--- Comment #44 from Baurzhan Muftakhidinov ---
(In reply to Milan Bouchet-Valat from comment #43)
> (In reply to Baurzhan Muftakhidinov from comment #42)
> > Hi,
> > I put rhel version there to ensure that build passes. Otherwise, without
> >
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1040517
Bug 1040517 depends on bug 1098534, which changed state.
Bug 1098534 Summary: Package relying on a specific LLVM version
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1098534
What|Removed |Added
-
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1040517
Milan Bouchet-Valat changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends On||1109390
Referenced Bugs:
http
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1040517
--- Comment #43 from Milan Bouchet-Valat ---
(In reply to Baurzhan Muftakhidinov from comment #42)
> Hi,
> I put rhel version there to ensure that build passes. Otherwise, without
> second check, %if 0%{?fedora} < 20 was true for rhel7 and bui
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1040517
--- Comment #42 from Baurzhan Muftakhidinov ---
(In reply to Milan Bouchet-Valat from comment #41)
> Yes, I've considered EPEL, but as a first step I wanted to get the package
> working for Fedora. But thanks for looking at it, I can make sure
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1040517
--- Comment #41 from Milan Bouchet-Valat ---
Yes, I've considered EPEL, but as a first step I wanted to get the package
working for Fedora. But thanks for looking at it, I can make sure the package
is clean for EPEL.
(In reply to Baurzhan Muf
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1040517
Milan Bouchet-Valat changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends On||1108765
Referenced Bugs:
http
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1040517
--- Comment #40 from Baurzhan Muftakhidinov ---
(In reply to Milan Bouchet-Valat from comment #38)
> Could anybody on 32-bit check whether Julia starts correctly with the
> following package on F20? What's changed is that it should now run on
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1040517
--- Comment #39 from Baurzhan Muftakhidinov ---
(In reply to Milan Bouchet-Valat from comment #38)
> Could anybody on 32-bit check whether Julia starts correctly with the
> following package on F20? What's changed is that it should now run on
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1040517
Bug 1040517 depends on bug 1058019, which changed state.
Bug 1058019 Summary: Review Request: utf8proc - Library for processing UTF-8
encoded Unicode strings
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1058019
What|Removed
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1040517
--- Comment #38 from Milan Bouchet-Valat ---
Could anybody on 32-bit check whether Julia starts correctly with the following
package on F20? What's changed is that it should now run on all i386 CPUs, not
only on recent ones (but checking that
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1040517
Bug 1040517 depends on bug 1089500, which changed state.
Bug 1089500 Summary: Review Request: openlibm - High quality system
independent, open source libm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1089500
What|Removed
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1040517
--- Comment #37 from Milan Bouchet-Valat ---
Temporary bundling exceptions granted for libuv and Rmath. dSFMT is going to be
packaged and Julia will use that instead (which may need changes upstream since
currently dSFMT does not produce a lib
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1040517
--- Comment #36 from Milan Bouchet-Valat ---
Neal: Yeah, this works on build VMs, but is less practical on your own machine.
See bug 1098534.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1040517
Milan Bouchet-Valat changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends On||1098534
Referenced Bugs:
http
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1040517
--- Comment #35 from Neal Becker ---
(In reply to Milan Bouchet-Valat from comment #34)
> Yeah, but LLVM 3.4 triggers problems when running the tests (cf. comments
> above). In the meantime, you can replace llvm-libs-3.4 with the old 3.3
> ver
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1040517
--- Comment #34 from Milan Bouchet-Valat ---
Yeah, but LLVM 3.4 triggers problems when running the tests (cf. comments
above). In the meantime, you can replace llvm-libs-3.4 with the old 3.3 version
from the "fedora" repo.
--
You are receivi
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1040517
--- Comment #33 from Rex Dieter ---
Needs rebuild after llvm-3.4 landed in updates:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-5319
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1040517
Neal Becker changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|ndbeck...@gmail.com |
CC|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1040517
Bug 1040517 depends on bug 1062901, which changed state.
Bug 1062901 Summary: Review Request: openspecfun - Library providing a
collection of special mathematical functions
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1062901
What
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1040517
--- Comment #31 from Milan Bouchet-Valat ---
julia-release-basic/julia-basic existed until recently, when the Julia-based
readline implementation was merged. Now only the julia executable exists.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You a
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1040517
--- Comment #30 from Neal Becker ---
I tried using julia (0.3.0-prerelease) using emacs in
ess. It appears to work without using julia-release-basic, so maybe
this is no longer required?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on th
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1040517
--- Comment #29 from Neal Becker ---
Is julia-release-basic not packaged?
This is needed to run julia under emacs
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this prod
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1040517
--- Comment #28 from Milan Bouchet-Valat ---
I've created a copr project here:
http://copr.fedoraproject.org/coprs/nalimilan/julia/
It unveiled two more failures in the tests:
https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/issues/6743
https://github.com/
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1040517
--- Comment #27 from Milan Bouchet-Valat ---
Filed https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/issues/6742 about the unexpected
dependency on openspecfun-devel (also applies to openlibm).
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1040517
Orion Poplawski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends On||1089500
Referenced Bugs:
https://
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1040517
--- Comment #26 from Milan Bouchet-Valat ---
Thanks, filed here: https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/issues/6722
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1040517
--- Comment #25 from Orion Poplawski ---
linux-user-chroot --unshare-net / rpmbuild
copr builds should reproduce as well.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1040517
--- Comment #24 from Milan Bouchet-Valat ---
Orion: How do you reproduce the ENETUNREACH tests failure? Do you need to
disable the loopback interface?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1040517
--- Comment #23 from Milan Bouchet-Valat ---
baurthefirst: Right, I'll fix that too.
Orion: Thanks for the LLVM hint. I just have to hope that the situation where
Julia does not support a new version of LLVM which is pushed to the current
rel
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1040517
--- Comment #22 from Orion Poplawski ---
(In reply to baurthefirst from comment #19)
> Have you considered setting JULIA_CPU_TARGET to core2? By default it is set
> to native, thus causing the issue as I wrote earlier:
>
> Target architecture
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1040517
--- Comment #21 from Orion Poplawski ---
(In reply to Milan Bouchet-Valat from comment #18)
> Orion: Yes, LLVM is going to be a problem. I've updated it manually to 3.4,
> but I don't know how to make it automatic, and more profoundly there's
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1040517
--- Comment #20 from baurthefi...@gmail.com ---
I meant, when you compile julia on a newer CPU, its library file
/usr/lib64/julia/sys.so may not work on older CPUs.
See https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/julia-dev/Eqp0GhZWxME
--
You are
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1040517
--- Comment #19 from baurthefi...@gmail.com ---
(In reply to Milan Bouchet-Valat from comment #18)
> Orion: Yes, LLVM is going to be a problem. I've updated it manually to 3.4,
> but I don't know how to make it automatic, and more profoundly th
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1040517
--- Comment #18 from Milan Bouchet-Valat ---
Orion: Yes, LLVM is going to be a problem. I've updated it manually to 3.4, but
I don't know how to make it automatic, and more profoundly there's no guarantee
that Julia will work with any newer ve
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1040517
--- Comment #17 from baurthefi...@gmail.com ---
1. Builds on copr fail sometime due to failing test in file arpack.jl
2. After installing from copr, I got the following error message:
Target architecture mismatch. Please delete or regenerate
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1040517
baurthefi...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||baurthefi...@gmail.com
--- Co
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1040517
--- Comment #15 from Orion Poplawski ---
Hmm, I would have thought rpm would complain about unpackaged files in the
libuv.a case. I tend to prefer simply using rm in %install, but whatever you
like best.
The llvm version appears to be hardco
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1040517
--- Comment #14 from Milan Bouchet-Valat ---
The second exclude is not needed, but the first is because the libuv static
library is not needed for Julia to run. I could include it in the -devel
package, but I'm not sure which program would nee
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1040517
--- Comment #13 from Orion Poplawski ---
ARM support would be nice to see.
Misc:
%exclude %{_libdir}/julia/libuv.a
%exclude %{_libdir}/julia/libjulia-debug.so
should not be necessary
Blank lines between %changelog entries please.
Have you
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1040517
--- Comment #12 from Milan Bouchet-Valat ---
Are you OK with the new version? (FWIW, ARM support in Julia might well be
ready for the next 0.3 version.)
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are alwa
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1040517
--- Comment #11 from Milan Bouchet-Valat ---
OK, I've removed the julia meta-package. I'll request a new comp group when
everything is packaged. So when utf8proc and openlibm will have been reviewed,
everything will be ready.
--
You are rece
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1040517
Milan Bouchet-Valat changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends On||1062901
Referenced Bugs:
http
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1040517
--- Comment #10 from Orion Poplawski ---
I believe meta-packages are frowned upon and comps groups preferred for this
sort of thing.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about ch
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1040517
--- Comment #9 from Milan Bouchet-Valat ---
The meta-package thing was done with the idea that in the future more packages
could be installed by default. What comes to mind, similar to what happens with
R, is a host of recommended packages for
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1040517
Orion Poplawski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||or...@cora.nwra.com
--- Comment #8
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1040517
--- Comment #7 from Neal Becker ---
I'm not certain, but I believe the explicit dependency should just be deleted.
I believe rpm is supposed to add the correct dep here automatically.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the C
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1040517
--- Comment #6 from Milan Bouchet-Valat ---
Thanks. I guess julia-devel should depend on julia-base, not on julia. I'll
change that, but you can easily fix the .spec file if you want.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1040517
Neal Becker changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ndbeck...@gmail.com
--- Comment #5 from
1 - 100 of 109 matches
Mail list logo
