https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1112864
Susi Lehtola changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks|505154 (FE-SCITECH) |
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.r
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1112864
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ON_QA |CLOSED
Fixed In Version|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1112864
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Fixed In Version|elpa-2013.11-3.008.fc19 |elpa-2013.11-3.008.fc20
--- Co
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1112864
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
--- Comment #23 from Fed
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1112864
--- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System ---
elpa-2013.11-3.008.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/elpa-2013.11-3.008.fc20
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC li
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1112864
--- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System ---
elpa-2013.11-3.008.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/elpa-2013.11-3.008.fc19
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC li
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1112864
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED
--
You are receiving
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1112864
--- Comment #20 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski ---
Bug 1115220 filed for EPEL7 branch blocker. I'll work on building
parallel-installable optimized versions, too. As for building against openblas,
this would either have to be a distro-wid
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1112864
--- Comment #19 from Dave Love ---
(In reply to Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski from comment #15)
> It is build against atlas now. openblas doesn't support ARM yet. Do you
> think it's worth it to build against openblas on x86/x86_64 and atlas
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1112864
--- Comment #18 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=1112864
Jon Ciesla changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+
--
You are receiving this m
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1112864
Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-cvs?
--- Comm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1112864
Sandro Mani changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #16 from San
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1112864
--- Comment #15 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski ---
(In reply to Sandro Mani from comment #12)
> Hmpf, didn't notice that my comment wasn't submitted due to mid-air
> collission... Anyway, the comment was:
>
>
> elpa-openmpi.x86_64: W: e
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1112864
--- Comment #14 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski ---
(In reply to Dave Love from comment #11)
> Created attachment 912845 [details]
> port to EPEL6
Thanks a lot, but I don't think it's worth it to maintain the same spec file
across all bra
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1112864
--- Comment #13 from Dave Love ---
The execstack call has a typo -- "mpich" should be "$mpi".
Shouldn't it link against openblas/atlas rather than reference blas?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Y
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1112864
--- Comment #12 from Sandro Mani ---
Hmpf, didn't notice that my comment wasn't submitted due to mid-air
collission... Anyway, the comment was:
elpa-openmpi.x86_64: W: executable-stack
/usr/lib64/openmpi/lib/libelpa.so.0.0.0
Rest is good!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1112864
--- Comment #11 from Dave Love ---
Created attachment 912845
--> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=912845&action=edit
port to EPEL6
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always noti
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1112864
--- Comment #10 from Dave Love ---
(In reply to Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski from comment #3)
> > Would you accept a patch for EPEL6?
>
> Of course. I'll most likely keep it in that branch only, though.
I'll attach the patch I've built wi
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1112864
--- Comment #9 from Sandro Mani ---
Bugs filed:
openmpi: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1113626
mpich: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1113627
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1112864
--- Comment #8 from Sandro Mani ---
> Sorry, ignore that. The module file I had was actually from the fedora-19
> package. In RHEL, and later Fedora by the looks of it, pkg-config won't
> normally find the pc files in the MPI tree.
In my
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1112864
--- Comment #7 from Dave Love ---
> > * Same goes with %{_libdir}/*mpi*/pkgconfig
>
> It looks like an openmpi packaging bug, at least in EPEL6. Its environment
> module file references the directory, but the package doesn't create it.
So
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1112864
--- Comment #6 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski ---
(In reply to Sandro Mani from comment #2)
> Issues:
> - A comment why %{?_smp_mflags} is disabled would be nice
> - Comment how to obtain source tarball
Fixed. After talking to upstream a
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1112864
--- Comment #5 from Sandro Mani ---
I've filed [1] about the %{_libdir}/gfortran issue. In the meantime, yes please
require gcc-gfortran as the guidelines state.
[1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1113564
--
You are receiving
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1112864
--- Comment #4 from Dave Love ---
(In reply to Sandro Mani from comment #2)
> - Unowned directory issues:
> * No package seems to own %{_libdir}/gfortran (possibly gfortran should do
> so?)
In case it's not clear, the guidelines say the dev
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1112864
--- Comment #3 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski ---
(In reply to Dave Love from comment #1)
> I've just been doing it; never mind.
>
> Would you accept a patch for EPEL6?
Of course. I'll most likely keep it in that branch only, though.
>
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1112864
--- Comment #2 from Sandro Mani ---
Issues:
- A comment why %{?_smp_mflags} is disabled would be nice
- Comment how to obtain source tarball
- Unowned directory issues:
* No package seems to own %{_libdir}/gfortran (possibly gfortran should
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1112864
Dave Love changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||d.l...@liverpool.ac.uk
--- Comment #1 fro
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1112864
Sandro Mani changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1112864
Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Alias||elpa
--
You are rec
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1112864
Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||976092
Referenced B
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1112864
Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||505154 (FE-SCITECH)
32 matches
Mail list logo
