#851042 molds: FTBFS: liblapacke.so: undefined reference to `sgemqr_'

Package:
src:molds
Source:
molds
Submitter:
Lucas Nussbaum
Date:
2023-10-20 16:45:04 UTC
Severity:
wishlist
Tags:
#851042#5
Date:
2017-01-11 18:55:49 UTC
From:
To:
Hi,

During a rebuild of all packages in sid, your package failed to build on
amd64.

Relevant part (hopefully):
http://aws-logs.debian.net/2017/01/11/molds_0.3.1-1_unstable.log

A list of current common problems and possible solutions is available at
http://wiki.debian.org/qa.debian.org/FTBFS . You're welcome to contribute!

About the archive rebuild: The rebuild was done on EC2 VM instances from
Amazon Web Services, using a clean, minimal and up-to-date chroot. Every
failed build was retried once to eliminate random failures.
#851042#10
Date:
2017-01-23 15:42:02 UTC
From:
To:
This seems to be a recurring problem, see #810230.
openblas seem to require a rebuild after a lapack update
Molds should become buildable again in a few hours, since the openblas
0.2.19-2 upload.
#851042#15
Date:
2017-01-23 15:52:52 UTC
From:
To:
Le lundi 23 janvier 2017 à 17:42 +0200, Graham Inggs a écrit :

The rebuilding for both atlas and openblas has been requested on Jan 12,
and became effective on Jan 17 (see ##851133).
#851042#20
Date:
2017-01-23 15:59:04 UTC
From:
To:
Ah thanks! I checked on reproducible builds [1] and it was still
failing, but it seems they suddenly stopped building molds on Jan 16.


[1] https://tests.reproducible-builds.org/debian/history/molds.html
#851042#27
Date:
2017-01-26 19:13:51 UTC
From:
To:
I requested for reproducible build tests of molds to be scheduled.
Builds were successful in unstable and testing on amd64.

2017-01-26 14:39 0.3.1-1 unstable amd64 unreproducible 47m 18s
profitbricks-build5-amd64 profitbricks-build1-amd64 amd64_26/10223
2017-01-26 14:38 0.3.1-1 testing amd64 reproducible 4h 18m 19s
profitbricks-build5-amd64 profitbricks-build11-amd64 amd64_6/67800
#851042#42
Date:
2023-10-17 23:27:48 UTC
From:
To:
Hello.

I have successful build logs for "molds" in bullseye,
bookworm, and trixie.

I don't quite understand how a bug may be both
"ftbfs" and "wontfix". In my opinion, the bug
reported by Lucas Nussbaum is fixed and may be
closed.

OTOH, if this bug is being kept open to track something
different (what Graham Inggs called "a recurring problem"
in a previous message), maybe it would make sense to
retitle at least.

Thanks.
#851042#47
Date:
2023-10-20 15:19:02 UTC
From:
To:
It seems a similar problem happened in #897488 [1] in May 2018.
Unfortunately, that was before Adrian tagged this bug FTBFS, and molds
was removed from testing for eight months unnecessarily.


[1] https://bugs.debian.org/897488
#851042#52
Date:
2023-10-20 16:40:06 UTC
From:
To:
El 20/10/23 a las 17:19, Graham Inggs escribió:

AFAIK it is the severity of the bug (serious in this case) what
triggers the autoremoval from testing, not the "ftbfs" tag.

And the severity was set by Lucas Nussbaum in the initial report,
because he was reporting (as he usually does) "the FTBFS of the day"
(so to speak).

For the purposes of this bug, we can consider the report by Lucas
Nussbaum as if it was the action of an automatic mechanism. He detected
a package which did FTBFS at a given time, so he reported it as a serious bug.

So, I don't see an easy way to improve that. Lucas is amazingly productive at
reporting FTBFS bugs, so I would rather adapt to the way he report bugs than
ask him to do things differently to avoid cases like this one.

Thanks.