[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Request for Review: blacs, scalapack, R-RScaLAPACK

On Tue, 2005-04-19 at 13:18 -0400, Ed Hill wrote:

>  ===  blacs  ===
>  - Is "BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/lapack-%{version}-root" OK?  Honestly,
>    I'm not an authority!  It just seems odd.

Whoops. Caught me. Can anyone guess which spec file I used as a base? :)

>  - Should there be a "BuildRequires: gfortran"?  I can't get it to
>    build without gfortran (eg. on an FC3 system w/g77) and its not
>    listed in the BuildRequires Exceptions list at:
>      http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingGuidelines

Yes, it should be there. Note that all of these packages are targeted at
FC4 (devel). They could probably be made to work on FC3, if there is

>  ===  scalapack  ===
>  - again, is "BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/lapack-%{version}-root" OK?


>  - again, does it need a "BuildRequires: gfortran"?


>  - Appears to build, install, and otherwise looks OK on a freshly
>    updated devel system (but did not actually have the time to run any
>    of it).
>  ===  R-RScaLAPACK  ===
>  - It needs R-devel and "yum install R-devel" fails due to a
>    dependency upon gcc-g77.  So, perhaps R-devel needs to be updated
>    to depend upon gcc-gfortran before trying to review R-RScaLAPACK?

The fc3 version of R-devel requires gcc-g77. The fc4 (devel) version
requires gcc-gfortran. So, this is expected behavior on fc3.

If there is demand, I can start making fc3 packages for review alongside
the devel packages.

Updated packages:




Tom "spot" Callaway: Red Hat Sales Engineer || GPG Fingerprint: 93054260
Fedora Extras Steering Committee Member (RPM Standards and Practices)
Aurora Linux Project Leader: http://auroralinux.org
Lemurs, llamas, and sparcs, oh my!

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]