From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:35948) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gthNL-00019P-Oe for guix-patches@gnu.org; Tue, 12 Feb 2019 18:22:04 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gthNL-0004gu-0b for guix-patches@gnu.org; Tue, 12 Feb 2019 18:22:03 -0500 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:46154) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gthNK-0004gg-Sd for guix-patches@gnu.org; Tue, 12 Feb 2019 18:22:02 -0500 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1gthNK-0001Ts-NM for guix-patches@gnu.org; Tue, 12 Feb 2019 18:22:02 -0500 Subject: bug#29810: gnu: maths: Fix cache size detected by openblas on some Resent-To: guix-patches@gnu.org Resent-Message-ID: Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2019 18:21:48 -0500 From: Leo Famulari Message-ID: <20190212232148.GB31772@jasmine.lan> References: <87r2rm29dy.fsf@albion.it.manchester.ac.uk> <87zi5oit2m.fsf@gnu.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="/NkBOFFp2J2Af1nK" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87zi5oit2m.fsf@gnu.org> List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-patches-bounces+kyle=kyleam.com@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-patches" Cc: Dave Love , 29810-done@debbugs.gnu.org --/NkBOFFp2J2Af1nK Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, Jan 08, 2018 at 10:43:45AM +0100, Ludovic Court=E8s wrote: > Thanks for the patch. Given the number of dependents, we would not push > it in master (info "(guix) Submitting Patches"). At the same time, > since 0.2.20 is in core-updates and well on its way, do you think we > should keep those patches? >=20 > Perhaps in core-updates we could keep both 0.2.19 with these patches and > 0.2.20 (ISTR you said there were incompatibilities between these two > versions)? Would it make sense? Our openblas package is currently at version 0.3.4. Due to lack of response from the submitter and the "staleness" of these patches I'm closing the bug ticket. Please re-open the bug if it is still relevant to you. --/NkBOFFp2J2Af1nK Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAABCAAdFiEEsFFZSPHn08G5gDigJkb6MLrKfwgFAlxjVQwACgkQJkb6MLrK fwgBmRAAnWSDY/JAtqBVBwaO+RwMhHdPZU0p7K7tTtnbalaqugLjwOLLCa9GabFh qv9+5kUGxfzuF6k/5dgdeZaPpA2ihalJYDj173v1DTiGCLT99jFWxncITIRs1TUo fCBENfaEgPqaDsif326BY8sCXBzwrbZbnjGSpIPhsu2/aqyTqJ6JnBTWhth4Epdz k4mXQvFisgW9sL03oCUOSdzGHDoz2jrmx1DkglMcLhaCzCgMfCbfsvqFzu6zJcdg s8Mm88pzPj3vgFnSjszBD6lm9pmQeg6hHS+eCDsDOZTiGC4wO0imXlV1P2z7zU0P mH8A6TmZUOM3/DOgmq9TSC46l5jpZRKHczQSQKtloOAcx2ac3z6dGwe8TjuxPsVb 4cXqYzYBrhm8xN4uHVXzfu00YDYnsdsAD8PPei6dVXX3DELkDDo1M8yoAiPC5uEp DxAntVIflrG4k3xBTaOmnsH3eckzFRqMlALvUIGC6R2/5zmWZa3wGbP5BngoH3c4 TcrBBPsI5LrkZqg2YCohVMiu1LeudK1ERrDlyUUkto17TXlO50QjwY0wx7P3UwKL y0PVuDrnYkebByhU2YTXjn7rN7NqNXVuuMoe8GMV8vfzUNamzX6rx6eMyG27c/nY SckvaGjim+tc++fqBVUvk1AZO2DSmQEAySHZag5wTtTxnc6bKbU= =V0yB -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --/NkBOFFp2J2Af1nK--