[Bug 214967] Review Request: arpack - Fortran77 subroutines for solving large scale eigenvalue problems

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: arpack - Fortran77 subroutines for solving large scale eigenvalue problems


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=214967





------- Additional Comments From rpm at greysector.net  2007-06-29 16:13 EST -------
(In reply to comment #48)
> (In reply to comment #44)
> > I suggest the following patch to adress two issues:
> > 1. we shouldn't ship static libraries
> 
> Why not? Many people using arpack do so in static builds. But what needs to be
> done is to split of the static lib in arpack-static (when the package was
> submitted the guideline did not exist yet).

Why too? The guidelines say there must be a compelling reason to ship static
libs. Is there one? If yes, please provide it. And yes, of course static libs
must be in a separate subpackage.

> > 2. there's a bug in eigenvalue calculation routine, see
> > http://www.ann.jussieu.fr/pipermail/freefempp/2006/000213.html for more details.
> 
> Thanks! It does look a bit awkward that freefem++ ships a patch to two files
> as those two files in a tarball within its tarball, and for simplicity's sake
> I'll better make a real patch out of it. Do you perhaps know whether freefem++
> reported this bug upstream to arpack? I saw that you asked, but there was no
> reply on the archive (maybe unlinked due to mailman's archive boundaries).

I don't think they did. At least there were no further replies. I would've made
a patch myself, but I don't know Fortran and I didn't have time to look into it.


-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.