https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1108765
Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Fixed In Version|dSFMT-2.2.3-4.fc19
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1108765
Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Fixed In Version|dSFMT-2.2.3-4.fc21
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1108765
Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Fixed In Version|dSFMT-2.2.3-4.fc20
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1108765
Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ON_QA |CLOSED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1108765
Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1108765
--- Comment #17 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com ---
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=1108765
Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1108765
--- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org ---
dSFMT-2.2.3-4.el7 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 7.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/dSFMT-2.2.3-4.el7
--
You are receiving this mail because:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1108765
--- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org ---
dSFMT-2.2.3-4.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/dSFMT-2.2.3-4.fc21
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1108765
--- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org ---
dSFMT-2.2.3-4.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/dSFMT-2.2.3-4.fc20
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1108765
--- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org ---
dSFMT-2.2.3-4.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/dSFMT-2.2.3-4.fc19
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1108765
--- Comment #13 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com ---
WARNING: Package does not appear to exist in pkgdb currently.
NOTE: Misformatted request; using 'Branches' instead.
WARNING: SCM request was not the last comment.
WARNING: No new
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1108765
Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-cvs? |
--
You are
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1108765
Milan Bouchet-Valat nalimi...@club.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review+ |fedora-review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1108765
Milan Bouchet-Valat nalimi...@club.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1108765
--- Comment #15 from Milan Bouchet-Valat nalimi...@club.fr ---
NOTE: Misformatted request; using 'Branches' instead.
Not sure what this means: I followed the syntax from
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_SCM_admin_requests
Package
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1108765
--- Comment #16 from Milan Bouchet-Valat nalimi...@club.fr ---
I just saw Paulo's mail on fedora-devel. Funny how I checked all fields, but
not the header. So here we are:
New Package SCM Request
===
Package Name: dSFMT
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1108765
Milan Bouchet-Valat nalimi...@club.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-cvs?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1108765
Paulo Andrade paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andr...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1108765
Milan Bouchet-Valat nalimi...@club.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1108765
Orion Poplawski or...@cora.nwra.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1108765
--- Comment #9 from Milan Bouchet-Valat nalimi...@club.fr ---
Would someone do the final review?
Spec URL: http://nalimilan.perso.neuf.fr/transfert/dSFMT-2.2.3-3.fc20.src.rpm
SRPM URL:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1108765
--- Comment #8 from Milan Bouchet-Valat nalimi...@club.fr ---
I just noticed you kept this line in sharedlib.patch:
```
+SSE2FLAGS = -msse2 -DHAVE_SSE2
```
If you keep it even on 32-bit, then dSFMT will effectively require Pentium 4
and
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1108765
--- Comment #7 from Milan Bouchet-Valat nalimi...@club.fr ---
I've made a SRPM with the two patches merged into one (since they are highly
related). It works for me with Julia:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1108765
--- Comment #6 from Milan Bouchet-Valat nalimi...@club.fr ---
Apparently, the second patch is needed simply because dSFMT is originally
supposed to be compiled with the calling code instead of as a separate library.
So I think you should
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1108765
--- Comment #3 from Xavier Lamien lxt...@gmail.com ---
Good catch on value path. I'll make the change.
Finally, have you tried contacting the author? He might be interesting I
applying your patch to make a real shared library upstream.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1108765
--- Comment #4 from Xavier Lamien lxt...@gmail.com ---
Here we go!
Spec URL: http://laxathom.fedorapeople.org/infra-fp/fpc/dSFMT/dSFMT.spec
SRPM URL:
http://laxathom.fedorapeople.org/infra-fp/fpc/dSFMT/dSFMT-2.2.3-2.fc20.src.rpm
Koji build:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1108765
--- Comment #5 from Milan Bouchet-Valat nalimi...@club.fr ---
Cool! Though you don't seem to have changed DESTDIR. Is this voluntary?
To use your package to build Julia, I'd need you to apply two patches Julia is
using. The first one is
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1108765
--- Comment #2 from Milan Bouchet-Valat nalimi...@club.fr ---
Thanks for taking care of this!
I have spotted a few things:
+LIBDIR = $(PREFIX)/lib64
Maybe 'lib' would be better, since it does not depend on the architecture.
+SSE2_LIBDIR
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1108765
--- Comment #1 from Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com ---
Quick comments:
The license tag is wrong here, Freely redistributable without restriction
only is valid for Firmware.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1108765
Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1108765
Milan Bouchet-Valat nalimi...@club.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||1040517
32 matches
Mail list logo
