On 6 May 2017 at 22:34, Tomasz Buchert wrote: | Hey, | | On 06/05/17 14:43, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote: | > | > On 6 May 2017 at 20:43, Tomasz Buchert wrote: | > | On 06/05/17 19:23, Tomasz Buchert wrote: | > | > [...] | > | | > | Ok, I confirm that dlopen() is required to properly resolve some | > | symbols later: I can only assume that openmpi does some magic | > | there. Here are 2 solutions I came up with: | > | | > | 1. Just like in #741297: add another dlopen() call to the chain (see | > | attached simple-but-wrong.debdiff) | > | > Right. That is the obvious one. | > | > | 2. Figure out what is the libmpi to load. I attach a proof-of-concept that uses dl_iterate_phdr | > | to find this out (see attached findlibmpi.debdiff). | > | > That's for upstream. I would encourage you to send that to Hao Yu explaining | > the issue. Other distro may end up with the same sonames. | | But there is also the issue at hand: this RC bug. It should be fine to | patch it temporarily at least to let the package be in stable, no?
Yes, and already done. I made that upload pretty much right after the last round of mails. As for transition from unstable to testing and possible stable: depends on where openmpi 2.* is. I doubt it reached stable. Has it? | > | I've tested both approaches and they work for me. | > | | > | Btw, it would be good to add a smoke test to verify that loading from | > | R works, so that we can detect it just after build. | > | > It already does. At the end of each 'R CMD INSTALL foo' run (which what we do | > here to) the new library is loaded. | > | > But as we build, the libopenmpi-dev package is present, and then it passes | > (see my earlier messages based on poking around in a Debian unstable session | > in a Docker container). | | Right, makes sense. What about https://ci.debian.net/? Because R package _usually_ just test themselves, I have not ventured into this. Also, upstream is all set for test _while building / installing_ and hooking into run-time tests _after the build_ is not something native to the R culture. | > Thanks much for the patch, this really help. And I do appreciate that you | > tested it. This matters. | > | > Now, if I may: Going forward, you may want to think keeping a little bit of | > the attitude out of your posts. Nobody asked about your personal opinions | > regarding the build system, or judgement about certain patches (which, after | > all, were also initially wrong on your end). | | Nothing I wrote was intended as a personal opinion (isn't format 1.0 | objectively worse than 3.0? wasn't the add-another-dlopen fix bound to | fail in the future?), but I understand that it could be read like | that. I'm sorry if I offended you. | | And my patch was wrong, you caught me red-handed and I stand corrected. I found the tone about 1.0 vs 3.0 a little snarky, and the label of your (otherwise helpful patch) was equally questionable. And, well, I caught you with the very first suggestion ("just remove the dlopen block") being wrong simply because I had more historical context with the package. But that's water down the drain. I *really* appreciate that you dug up a patch, and went the extra step of testing it. The package should now be in better shape as 0.6.6-4 is now in unstable. So thanks again! Dirk | Cheers, | Tomasz | x[DELETED ATTACHMENT signature.asc, application/pgp-signature] -- http://dirk.eddelbuettel.com | @eddelbuettel | e...@debian.org
