Bug 157410 - sci-libs/lapack-reference-3.1.0.ebuild (version bump)
Bug#: 157410 Product:  Gentoo Linux Version: 2006.1 Platform: All
OS/Version: Linux Status: RESOLVED Severity: enhancement Priority: P2
Resolution: FIXED Assigned To: sci@gentoo.org Reported By: ediap@users.sourceforge.net
Component: Ebuilds
URL:  http://www.netlib.org/lapack/index.html
Summary: sci-libs/lapack-reference-3.1.0.ebuild (version bump)
Keywords:  
Status Whiteboard: 
Opened: 2006-12-07 01:04 0000
Description:   Opened: 2006-12-07 01:04 0000 
Hi!

Please find the attached autotool patch for a new LAPACK (version 3.1.0) and a
patch with differences against lapack-reference-3.0-r4.ebuild.

BR,
/ediap

------- Comment #1 From Adam Piątyszek 2006-12-07 01:05:31 0000 ------- 
Created an attachment (id=103522) [details]
lapack-reference-3.1.0-autotool.patch

------- Comment #2 From Adam Piątyszek 2006-12-07 01:07:04 0000 ------- 
Created an attachment (id=103524) [details]
lapack-reference-3.1.0.ebuild.patch

------- Comment #3 From Adam Piątyszek 2006-12-07 02:01:33 0000 ------- 
Created an attachment (id=103525) [details]
lapack-reference-3.1.0-autotool.patch

Fixed a problem with slamch.f and dlamch.f compilation without FFLAGS.

------- Comment #4 From Donnie Berkholz 2006-12-07 06:59:39 0000 ------- 
(In reply to comment #3)
> Created an attachment (id=103525) [edit] [details]
> lapack-reference-3.1.0-autotool.patch
> 
> Fixed a problem with slamch.f and dlamch.f compilation without FFLAGS.

Eh? They're supposed to ignore FFLAGS, otherwise you get miscompilation.

------- Comment #5 From Adam Piątyszek 2006-12-07 07:17:52 0000 ------- 
(In reply to comment #4)
> > Fixed a problem with slamch.f and dlamch.f compilation without FFLAGS.
> 
> Eh? They're supposed to ignore FFLAGS, otherwise you get miscompilation.

You are right. I just forgot about these two files while preparing a new patch,
since they are in a different directory now (INSTALL instead of SRC). Therefore
I posted an updated patch. In this new LAPACK release, there are also another
two files, which need to be compiled without any FFLAGS. Everything is in the
relevant Makefile.am.

BR,
/ediap

------- Comment #6 From Markus Dittrich 2007-02-04 20:28:14 0000 ------- 
(In reply to comment #5)>
> You are right. I just forgot about these two files while preparing a new patch,
> since they are in a different directory now (INSTALL instead of SRC). Therefore
> I posted an updated patch. In this new LAPACK release, there are also another
> two files, which need to be compiled without any FFLAGS. Everything is in the
> relevant Makefile.am.
> 
> BR,
> /ediap
> 

Hi Adam,

Thanks much for your ebuild and the patches. I've just committed a
lapack-3.1.0 ebuild to portage cvs. In addition to your changes I have

- enabled lapack's test routines, such that now src_test() should run
  through the full test set.
- changed the license from "lapack" to "BSD" since the tarball ships
  with a COPYING file which is verbatim the BSD license.

I've currently package.mask'ed it for a few days of more testing. For me all
lapack test routines do pass as do itpp's. It would be great if you could
check it out as well if you have time sometime. Once it's unmasked
I'll bump lapack-atlas as well.

Thanks,
Markus

------- Comment #7 From Adam Piątyszek 2007-02-04 23:02:56 0000 ------- 
(In reply to comment #6)
[...]
> I've currently package.mask'ed it for a few days of more testing. For me all
> lapack test routines do pass as do itpp's. It would be great if you could
> check it out as well if you have time sometime. Once it's unmasked
> I'll bump lapack-atlas as well.

Hi Markus! I have just installed the lapack-reference-3.1.0 from official
portage and tested the IT++ library against it. No problems observed on my x86
(Intel Pentium-M). All tests passed.

BR,
/Adam

------- Comment #8 From Markus Dittrich 2007-02-05 13:40:50 0000 ------- 
Hi Adam,

Thanks much for testing! I'll unmask 3.1.0 later today and will
hopefully be able to bump lapack-atlas as well. 

Thanks,
Markus