I believe there are some problems with the requires by the devel subpackage. I see: $ sudo dnf repoquery --requires armadillo Last metadata expiration check: 0:15:46 ago on dom 18 abr 2021 11:15:33. ld-linux-x86-64.so.2()(64bit) ld-linux-x86-64.so.2(GLIBC_2.3)(64bit) ld-linux.so.2 ld-linux.so.2(GLIBC_2.3) libarpack.so.2 libarpack.so.2()(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.1.3) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit) libflexiblas.so.3 libflexiblas.so.3()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1 libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libhdf5.so.103 libhdf5.so.103()(64bit) libm.so.6 libm.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6 libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libsuperlu.so.5.2 libsuperlu.so.5.2()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) but $ sudo dnf repoquery --requires armadillo-devel Last metadata expiration check: 0:16:22 ago on dom 18 abr 2021 11:15:33. /usr/bin/pkg-config SuperLU-devel armadillo = 10.2.0-1.fc33 armadillo = 9.900.3-2.fc33 arpack-devel atlas-devel hdf5-devel lapack-devel libarmadillo.so.10 libarmadillo.so.10()(64bit) libarmadillo.so.9 libarmadillo.so.9()(64bit) libstdc++-devel openblas-devel The devel subpackage should require the same libraries used for building, so lapack, openblas and atlas shouldn't be there, and flexiblas-devel should be there instead.
The person who submitted the flexiblas patch did not do that change. :-D On a more serious note what you say makes sense but in that case that should also apply to the BuildRequires, no? It is the same coherence argument that you made but now backwards. That is it should be enough to BuildRequire flexiblas-devel and not the other blas devel subpackages... Am I wrong in this assumption? PS: Pandemics with a mix of classroom and online lessons did not help to treat this issue sooner... :-(
Indeed. I didn't touch much the BuildRequires and Requires because I didn't know Armadillo well enough. Now it is evident from the output above that it should be something along these lines (not tested): BuildRequires: flexiblas-devel, arpack-devel, hdf5-devel, SuperLU-devel and the same for Requires in the devel subpackage.
I have created new packages for 10.6.0 with those changes applied. In order to keep the spec file compatible with EPEL I have make the build requirements (and corresponding requirement for armadillo-devel) conditional. For Fedora we use flexiblas and for EPEL we use lapack, openblas and atlas. Incidentally I think that atlas is not used as armadillo aptly prefers openblas if it finds both. The packages are already built for rawhide (F35), F34 and F33. For Fedora 34 and 33 I will wait for the previous build to be upgraded to stable and then I will issue a new update in bodhi. FWIW the new builds are available here: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=8763 Please test them to guarantee that all works as it should with this change. If it works for you please do not close this bug I will added to the updates report so that people are able to test it. In this vein I should say that the tests that I done locally worked, /usr/lib64/libarmadillo.so.10 is the same with and without the change as it should.
Thanks, the new builds look good to me. :) Another (unrelated, minor) thing I noticed is: shouldn't this line: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} for the devel subpackage, have the %{?_isa} macro?
(In reply to Iñaki Ucar from comment #4) > Thanks, the new builds look good to me. :) > > Another (unrelated, minor) thing I noticed is: shouldn't this line: > > Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} > > for the devel subpackage, have the %{?_isa} macro? Fixed in rawhide. Do you have any other request before build this for stables releases? :-D
Apologies, wasn't looking for that, just caught my eye. :)
(In reply to Iñaki Ucar from comment #6) > Apologies, wasn't looking for that, just caught my eye. :) There is no problem and thank you for contributions. I always see the silver lining, the cups is always half-full. :-)
FEDORA-2021-eae47cdbe7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-eae47cdbe7
FEDORA-2021-b8f3f54b8b has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-b8f3f54b8b
FEDORA-2021-eae47cdbe7 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-eae47cdbe7` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-eae47cdbe7 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2021-b8f3f54b8b has been pushed to the Fedora 33 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-b8f3f54b8b` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-b8f3f54b8b See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2021-eae47cdbe7 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2021-b8f3f54b8b has been pushed to the Fedora 33 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.