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

Bug#866582: marked as done (nmu: petsc_3.7.5+dfsg1-4)

Your message dated Mon, 3 Jul 2017 10:55:19 +0200
with message-id <1fe290d8-7772-e70a-7026-c61431a9d7d3@debian.org>
and subject line Re: Bug#866582: nmu: petsc_3.7.5+dfsg1-4
has caused the Debian Bug report #866582,
regarding nmu: petsc_3.7.5+dfsg1-4
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
866582: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=866582
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
Package: release.debian.org

User: release.debian.org@packages.debian.org

Usertags: binnmu

Severity: normal


nmu petsc_3.7.5+dfsg1-4 . ANY . unstable . -m "Rebuild against openmpi 2.1.1"



as said on irc, I don't know why that check is so strict, but better safe than sorry
and lets the stack migrate


thanks!

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
On 01/07/17 05:12, Drew Parsons wrote:
> On Fri, 2017-06-30 at 11:26 +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
>> Hi Drew,
>>
>> On 30/06/17 10:32, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote:
>>> Package: release.debian.org
>>> User: release.debian.org@packages.debian.org
>>> Usertags: binnmu
>>> Severity: normal
>>>
>>> nmu petsc_3.7.5+dfsg1-4 . ANY . unstable . -m "Rebuild against
>>> openmpi 2.1.1"
>>>
>>> as said on irc, I don't know why that check is so strict, but
>>> better safe than sorry
>>> and lets the stack migrate
>>
>> Why does petsc need such a strict dependency on openmpi? If openmpi
>> breaks the
>> ABI, the SONAME and package name will change and hence a rebuild will
>> obviously
>> be necessary without this hack. But if it didn't break the ABI, do we
>> really
>> need these rebuilds? Can't we just drop the check in petsc, or will
>> something break?
> 
> It is a bit of a nuisance.  It arises from the way PETSc handles MPI
> versions in /usr/lib/petsc/include/petscsys.h.  In 3.7.6 they have a
> strict equality on the OMPI version dependency.  I've contacted them
> about it and they've made a patch to relax it to a minor version
> dependency rather than a release (patch) version dependency, which
> should help us.
> 
> That patch is held at
> https://bitbucket.org/petsc/petsc/commits/ca70f86ee9db8e69523e0e69f12289c6cab9b4cb?at=jed/mpi-semver
> but looks like it hasn't been merged to upstream master yet.  We should
> contact upstream about it again.

I have gone ahead and scheduled the binNMU as this is blocking the python3.6
transition. But please, either get that patch upstreamed and in Debian, or just
apply it downstream. IMHO it would be better to just patch the whole thing out.
After all, openmpi / mpitch are ABI stable, and petsc will be rebuilt if they
change the ABI with a SONAME bump (and if they don't bump the SONAME, that's an
RC bug and we'll force a transition anyway).

Cheers,
Emilio

--- End Message ---
Reply to: