On Thu, 25 Aug 2022 at 18:34, Ralf Corsépius <rc040203(a)freenet.de> wrote:
Am 25.08.22 um 13:19 schrieb Iñaki Ucar:
> I assume their maintainers didn't do it on purpose, maybe it was
> easier for a certain update, didn't have time to look into it and
> weren't aware of the guideline. But this is very frustrating. Seeing
> many hours of work just wiped out without any notice or explanation is
> very frustrating.
In my case (freefem++), it was actually was a mixture of all.
To cut a long story short: This flexblas stuff doesn't "harmonize well"
with freefem++, rsp. more bluntly speaking, flexblas breaks freefem++.
Because of this, when going after freefem++'s regressions, years after
the flexiblas changes had been introduced, I inadvertedly and
accidentally reverted the flexblas related changes, because these
apparently do not work out with freefem++.
How exactly does flexiblas break freefem++? I see v4.10 was built just
fine. Then v4.11 reverted to openblas. If it works with openblas, I
see no reason to break with flexiblas, among other things because
openblas is the default backend. Moreover, arpack, superlu,
suitesparse and other BuildRequires link against flexiblas.
--
Iñaki Úcar