Re: New sundials upstream release
Dima Kogan <dima@secretsauce.net> writes:
> S�stien Villemot <sebastien@debian.org> writes:
>
>> Any update on this? I see that the git upstream branch has been
>> updated to 3.1. Is there any blocker, other than lack of time? I'm
>> willing to help if needed.
Just looked at it, and there's still a lot to do, sadly. The latest is
in the master branch of
git@salsa.debian.org:science-team/sundials.git
This has all the patches rebased except the ones dealing with the
examples (log line begins with "Examples:"). The patch-queue/master has
all the previous patches (many not-yet-rebased).
Things that need to be figured out, in no particular order:
- The tree in git almost builds packages successfully: the tests fail.
They fail because the test binaries are missing the RPATHs needed to
find the in-tree libraries. I don't yet know why this happens. If you
run cmake without any options, then the RPATHs are set properly.
Without the tests, the packages do build. This needs debugging.
- There's a new cmake option: SUNDIALS_INDEX_TYPE that can be set to
either int32_t or int64_t. With the former, the FORTRAN interface to
KLU refuses to build. With the latter, LAPACK support refuses to
build. The cmake invocation complains in both cases. The git tree
currently chooses int32_t. Somebody needs to understand this
limitation. The previous release of sundials supposedly supported both
LAPACK and talking to KLU with FORTRAN, and we should keep both if we
can.
- The examples patches need rebasing. These were heavily patched to
allow the examples to work with installed libraries (user installs
packages, grabs examples from /usr/share/doc/... and is able to build
and run them). Patches were needed because the makefiles were assuming
in-tree building of examples only.
- Upstream is bumping the SONAME. Would be good to run
abi-compliance-checker to see how broken the ABIs really are.
- There're many new sub-libraries. These are called sunlinsol_... I
don't know what these are yet. Maybe we should be shipping new
packages?
These can all be worked-on independently. I do intend to get everything
done, and get the packages out, but that won't happen imminently. If you
want to help, knock out any of the points above (and tell me which ones
you're doing, obviously).
Thanks!
Reply to: