Bug 1115042

Summary: building on EPEL6
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: Dave Love <dave.love>
Component: openblasAssignee: Susi Lehtola <susi.lehtola>
Status: CLOSED NOTABUG QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity: unspecified Docs Contact:
Priority: unspecified    
Version: rawhideCC: susi.lehtola
Target Milestone: ---   
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: Unspecified   
OS: Unspecified   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2014-07-31 14:14:56 UTC Type: Bug
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:
Attachments:
Description Flags
add NO_VPERMPD switch
none
use haswell patch in spec none

Description Dave Love 2014-07-01 13:15:03 UTC 
0.2.9 won't build on EPEL because of the binutils version required for the haswell
kernels.
These patches treat that like support for AVX.  I haven't tried EPEL5, but there's an EPEL6 build at https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7092265

The issue I opened about this upstream was closed without even a documentation
hint.  I'll re-open it and point to this change.
Comment 1 Dave Love 2014-07-01 13:15:53 UTC 
Created attachment 913760 [details]
add NO_VPERMPD switch
Comment 2 Dave Love 2014-07-01 13:16:45 UTC 
Created attachment 913761 [details]
use haswell patch in spec
Comment 3 Susi Lehtola 2014-07-02 01:19:07 UTC 
I see you're packager-to-be. Are you interested in comaintainership of OpenBLAS?
Comment 4 Dave Love 2014-07-31 14:05:17 UTC 
(In reply to Susi Lehtola from comment #3)
> I see you're packager-to-be. Are you interested in comaintainership of
> OpenBLAS?

Sorry, I missed this.  I might be, but I don't have sponsorship yet.
I'd definitely be interested in sorting out the BLAS situation so that
you can drop in alternatives, as for Debian.

[In case of any discussion, I'm about to go on holiday for 10 days.]
Comment 5 Dave Love 2014-07-31 14:14:56 UTC 
There's a fix for this in version 0.2.10, though I'm just using a version
built with devtools.  I could concoct a clean patch when I return, but actually
I think there's some other reason it won't port to EPEL6 that I'd have
to check on.

The version I've installed is in the copr repo
http://copr.fedoraproject.org/coprs/loveshack/livhpc/
in case anyone reading this is interested, but it requires a port of a lapack
update, at least.
Comment 6 Susi Lehtola 2014-08-01 06:23:13 UTC 
(In reply to Dave Love from comment #4)
> (In reply to Susi Lehtola from comment #3)
> > I see you're packager-to-be. Are you interested in comaintainership of
> > OpenBLAS?
> 
> Sorry, I missed this.  I might be, but I don't have sponsorship yet.
> I'd definitely be interested in sorting out the BLAS situation so that
> you can drop in alternatives, as for Debian.
> 
> [In case of any discussion, I'm about to go on holiday for 10 days.]

Well, Debian does this *the* *wrong* *way*. You *have* to have consistency between BLAS and LAPACK, and especially for the development libraries.