Final tarballs

[Luigi Ballabio-2]

Hi all,
        unless something really bad comes out, I'd consider the tarballs I just
uploaded into http://quantlib.org/gm the final ones for release 0.3.3.
I wrote September 3 as the release date into the History.txt and News.txt,
which gives us a week to leisurely finalize the release.

Dirk and Liguo, may you work your magic and create Debian packages and RPMs
based on those? (Liguo: the version should be 0.3.3---drop the beta)

Nando, are you making the actual release? (Liguo, you can deal with Nando
wrt where to upload the RPMs)

Thanks,
        Luigi

[Ferdinando M. Ametrano-2]

>(Liguo, you can deal with Nando wrt where to upload the RPMs)

just let me know where are the RPM files and I'll download them, then I
will add them to the SourceForge release files...


------------
ciao -- Nando

[Dirk Eddelbuettel]

On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 11:10:32AM +0200, Luigi Ballabio wrote:
>
> Hi all,
> unless something really bad comes out, I'd consider the tarballs I
> just uploaded into http://quantlib.org/gm the final ones for release 0.3.3.
> I wrote September 3 as the release date into the History.txt and News.txt,
> which gives us a week to leisurely finalize the release.
>
> Dirk and Liguo, may you work your magic and create Debian packages and RPMs
> based on those? (Liguo: the version should be 0.3.3---drop the beta)

I will once again call these 0.3.2.cvs.2003* so that the actual 0.3.3 can
overwrite them.  That may mean re-releasing the same tarball under two
names, but other wise I cannot do the test release.  Or would have to call
any subsequent release 0.3.3.1 or such which is worse (as the rest of the
world would still call it 0.3.3)

Dirk

--
Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others.
                                                -- Groucho Marx

[Luigi Ballabio-2]

At 06:31 AM 8/27/03 -0500, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
>I will once again call these 0.3.2.cvs.2003* so that the actual 0.3.3 can
>overwrite them.

Of course, no problem.

Bye,
         Luigi

[Liguo Song]

Hi, Luigi,

That sounds great. We are ahead of time to release 0.3.3.

I am going to download the final tar balls and perform my magic on it.
:) And I will talk to Nando about uploading the RPMs.

Thanks for the nice job.


Liguo



On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, Luigi Ballabio wrote:

>
> Hi all,
> unless something really bad comes out, I'd consider the tarballs I just
> uploaded into http://quantlib.org/gm the final ones for release 0.3.3.
> I wrote September 3 as the release date into the History.txt and News.txt,
> which gives us a week to leisurely finalize the release.
>
> Dirk and Liguo, may you work your magic and create Debian packages and RPMs
> based on those? (Liguo: the version should be 0.3.3---drop the beta)
>
> Nando, are you making the actual release? (Liguo, you can deal with Nando
> wrt where to upload the RPMs)
>
> Thanks,
> Luigi
>

[Liguo Song]

> >I will once again call these 0.3.2.cvs.2003* so that the actual 0.3.3 can
> >overwrite them.
>
> Of course, no problem.
It should be OK for the RPMs to call them 0.3.3 since this would be
the first release of RPMs. And also, with some dark magic, I can make
a 0.3.3 overwrite another 0.3.3. :)

Liguo

[Dirk Eddelbuettel]

On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 09:10:01AM -0500, Liguo Song wrote:
> > >I will once again call these 0.3.2.cvs.2003* so that the actual 0.3.3 can
> > >overwrite them.
> >
> > Of course, no problem.
> It should be OK for the RPMs to call them 0.3.3 since this would be
> the first release of RPMs. And also, with some dark magic, I can make
> a 0.3.3 overwrite another 0.3.3. :)

One word of advice, if I may: don't do that. You get crazy if you try to
debug errors by asking people questions like "was it version $foo downloaded
on day x, or on day y".  Making a distinction between versions is just what
version numbers are for.

That said, following some offline chat with Luigi, I will call the Debian
upload 0.3.3-1 because these are deemed final. Should hell freeze over, I
can always follow up with Debian revision 0.3.3-2 ...

Dirk

--
Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others.
                                                -- Groucho Marx

[Liguo Song]

Hi, Dirk,

Thanks for the nice advice.
> One word of advice, if I may: don't do that. You get crazy if you try to
> debug errors by asking people questions like "was it version $foo downloaded
> on day x, or on day y".  Making a distinction between versions is just what
> version numbers are for.
The dark magics of RPM are Release and Epoch, which will help me avoid the
problems. Release is the "1" in 0.3.3-1, and Epoch is something similar to
Release but is hidden from the normal version information.

> That said, following some offline chat with Luigi, I will call the Debian
> upload 0.3.3-1 because these are deemed final. Should hell freeze over, I
> can always follow up with Debian revision 0.3.3-2 ...
It might be a good idea to keep the version string consistent with different
packages. So, I will also call the RPM packages 0.3.3-1.

Later.


Liguo

[Liguo Song]

Hi, Nando,

Here is the URL for the RPM packages.
http://nlog.phy.vanderbilt.edu/SoftwareProjects/QuantLib/

The i686 packages are optimized for Pentium II and above, while the i386
packages should work on all intel or compatible cpus.

The src package is for people who needs to rebuild the binary packages to fit
their needs.

Please let me know if there is any problem.


Later.


Liguo



Ferdinando Ametrano wrote:

>
>> (Liguo, you can deal with Nando wrt where to upload the RPMs)
>
>
> just let me know where are the RPM files and I'll download them, then I
> will add them to the SourceForge release files...
>
>
> ------------
> ciao -- Nando

[Dirk Eddelbuettel]

Using the exact same settings, compiler versions, ... as yesterday on the
previous golden master, I now fail when running make check.  I first noticed
it from the build log and, to exclude any terminal settings issues, re-ran it.

It dies here:

/usr/bin/make  check-TESTS
make[3]: Entering directory home/edd/src/debian/QuantLib-0.3.3/test-suite'
                   
                    Testing can never demonstrate the absence
                   of errors in software, only their presence.
                                           -- W.E. Dijkstra
                                           
======================
Testing QuantLib 0.3.3
======================
Testing joint calendars...
Testing cap/floor dependency on
strike...lt-quantlib-test-suite: relocation error: lt-quantlib-test-suite:
undefined symbol:
_ZN8QuantLib9CashFlows24FloatingRateCouponVectorERKSt6vectorIdSaIdEERKNS_4DateES8_iRKNS_8CalendarENS_17RollingConventionERKNS_6HandleINS_7Indexes5XiborEEEiS5_S8_
FAIL: quantlib-test-suite
===================================================
1 of 1 tests failed
Please report to [hidden email]
===================================================

I will hold back the upload til I here from Luigi. As I noted, all 62 of
these passed with flying colours yesterday.

Liguo: I guess we could compare g++ et al version off-line if this works
for you. I am running Debian unstable, g++ is at 3.3.2-0pre1.

Dirk

--
Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others.
                                                -- Groucho Marx

[Liguo Song]

Hi, Dirk,

I was just pulling my hair off for another problem with quantlib-test-suite. My
RPM packages build fine, but when running quantlib-test-suite, it runs through
all the tests, but ends up with the following error message:

     !!!FAILURES!!!
     Test Results:
     Run:  64   Failures: 0   Errors: 1


     1) test: Testing Monte Carlo European engines against analytic results (E)
      "McSimulation::value : max number of samples exceeded"


Right now, the quantlib-test-suite is a little out of my reach. Any input?

BTW, if it helps, I am building the final tar balls that Luigi mentioned
previously.

Liguo


Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:

> Using the exact same settings, compiler versions, ... as yesterday on the
> previous golden master, I now fail when running make check.  I first noticed
> it from the build log and, to exclude any terminal settings issues, re-ran it.
>
> It dies here:
>
> /usr/bin/make  check-TESTS
> make[3]: Entering directory home/edd/src/debian/QuantLib-0.3.3/test-suite'
>                    
>                     Testing can never demonstrate the absence
>                    of errors in software, only their presence.
>                                            -- W.E. Dijkstra
>  
> ======================
> Testing QuantLib 0.3.3
> ======================
> Testing joint calendars...
> Testing cap/floor dependency on
> strike...lt-quantlib-test-suite: relocation error: lt-quantlib-test-suite:
> undefined symbol:
> _ZN8QuantLib9CashFlows24FloatingRateCouponVectorERKSt6vectorIdSaIdEERKNS_4DateES8_iRKNS_8CalendarENS_17RollingConventionERKNS_6HandleINS_7Indexes5XiborEEEiS5_S8_
> FAIL: quantlib-test-suite
> ===================================================
> 1 of 1 tests failed
> Please report to [hidden email]
> ===================================================
>
> I will hold back the upload til I here from Luigi. As I noted, all 62 of
> these passed with flying colours yesterday.
>
> Liguo: I guess we could compare g++ et al version off-line if this works
> for you. I am running Debian unstable, g++ is at 3.3.2-0pre1.
>
> Dirk
>

[Dirk Eddelbuettel]

On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 04:14:08PM -0500, Liguo Song wrote:

> Hi, Dirk,
>
> I was just pulling my hair off for another problem with
> quantlib-test-suite. My RPM packages build fine, but when running
> quantlib-test-suite, it runs through all the tests, but ends up with the
> following error message:
>
>     !!!FAILURES!!!
>     Test Results:
>     Run:  64   Failures: 0   Errors: 1
>
>
>     1) test: Testing Monte Carlo European engines against analytic results
>     (E)
>      "McSimulation::value : max number of samples exceeded"

Interesting. I don't get that -- the test suite runs fine once the package
is installed. It just doesn't from 'make check'. I get

[...]
Testing old-style Monte Carlo single-factor pricers...
Testing old-style Monte Carlo multi-factor pricers...

OK (64 tests)


Dirk

>
> Right now, the quantlib-test-suite is a little out of my reach. Any input?
>
> BTW, if it helps, I am building the final tar balls that Luigi mentioned
> previously.
>
> Liguo
>
>
> Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
> >Using the exact same settings, compiler versions, ... as yesterday on the
> >previous golden master, I now fail when running make check.  I first
> >noticed
> >it from the build log and, to exclude any terminal settings issues, re-ran
> >it.
> >
> >It dies here:
> >
> >/usr/bin/make  check-TESTS
> >make[3]: Entering directory home/edd/src/debian/QuantLib-0.3.3/test-suite'
> >                    
> >                    Testing can never demonstrate the absence
> >                   of errors in software, only their presence.
> >                                           -- W.E. Dijkstra
> >  
> >======================
> >Testing QuantLib 0.3.3
> >======================
> >Testing joint calendars...
> >Testing cap/floor dependency on
> >strike...lt-quantlib-test-suite: relocation error: lt-quantlib-test-suite:
> >undefined symbol:
> >_ZN8QuantLib9CashFlows24FloatingRateCouponVectorERKSt6vectorIdSaIdEERKNS_4DateES8_iRKNS_8CalendarENS_17RollingConventionERKNS_6HandleINS_7Indexes5XiborEEEiS5_S8_
> >FAIL: quantlib-test-suite
> >===================================================
> >1 of 1 tests failed
> >Please report to [hidden email]
> >===================================================
> >
> >I will hold back the upload til I here from Luigi. As I noted, all 62 of
> >these passed with flying colours yesterday.
> >
> >Liguo: I guess we could compare g++ et al version off-line if this works
> >for you. I am running Debian unstable, g++ is at 3.3.2-0pre1.
> >
> >Dirk
> >
>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
> Welcome to geek heaven.
> http://thinkgeek.com/sf
> _______________________________________________
> Quantlib-dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/quantlib-dev
>

--
Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others.
                                                -- Groucho Marx

[Liguo Song]

Hi, Dirk,

./configure;make;make check works smoothly here. So, it might be one of the
optimization flags that I used.

FYI, I am using gcc version 3.2 20020903 (Red Hat Linux 8.0 3.2-7). Also,
just in case that it matters, I am using automake-1.7.6-1 and
autoconf-2.57-3.

I will let you know if I figure out anything new.


Liguo



-----Original Message-----
From: Dirk Eddelbuettel [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: 27 August 2003 17:09
To: Liguo Song
Cc: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [Quantlib-dev] Problem testing [Re: Final tarballs]


On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 04:14:08PM -0500, Liguo Song wrote:

> Hi, Dirk,
>
> I was just pulling my hair off for another problem with
> quantlib-test-suite. My RPM packages build fine, but when running
> quantlib-test-suite, it runs through all the tests, but ends up with the
> following error message:
>
>     !!!FAILURES!!!
>     Test Results:
>     Run:  64   Failures: 0   Errors: 1
>
>
>     1) test: Testing Monte Carlo European engines against analytic results

>     (E)
>      "McSimulation::value : max number of samples exceeded"

Interesting. I don't get that -- the test suite runs fine once the package
is installed. It just doesn't from 'make check'. I get

[...]
Testing old-style Monte Carlo single-factor pricers...
Testing old-style Monte Carlo multi-factor pricers...

OK (64 tests)


Dirk

>
> Right now, the quantlib-test-suite is a little out of my reach. Any input?
>
> BTW, if it helps, I am building the final tar balls that Luigi mentioned
> previously.
>
> Liguo
>
>
> Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
> >Using the exact same settings, compiler versions, ... as yesterday on the
> >previous golden master, I now fail when running make check.  I first
> >noticed
> >it from the build log and, to exclude any terminal settings issues,

re-ran
> >it.
> >
> >It dies here:
> >
> >/usr/bin/make  check-TESTS
> >make[3]: Entering directory
home/edd/src/debian/QuantLib-0.3.3/test-suite'

> >                    
> >                    Testing can never demonstrate the absence
> >                   of errors in software, only their presence.
> >                                           -- W.E. Dijkstra
> >  
> >======================
> >Testing QuantLib 0.3.3
> >======================
> >Testing joint calendars...
> >Testing cap/floor dependency on
> >strike...lt-quantlib-test-suite: relocation error:

lt-quantlib-test-suite:
> >undefined symbol:
>
>_ZN8QuantLib9CashFlows24FloatingRateCouponVectorERKSt6vectorIdSaIdEERKNS_4D
ateES8_iRKNS_8CalendarENS_17RollingConventionERKNS_6HandleINS_7Indexes5Xibor
EEEiS5_S8_

> >FAIL: quantlib-test-suite
> >===================================================
> >1 of 1 tests failed
> >Please report to [hidden email]
> >===================================================
> >
> >I will hold back the upload til I here from Luigi. As I noted, all 62 of
> >these passed with flying colours yesterday.
> >
> >Liguo: I guess we could compare g++ et al version off-line if this works
> >for you. I am running Debian unstable, g++ is at 3.3.2-0pre1.
> >
> >Dirk
> >
>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
> Welcome to geek heaven.
> http://thinkgeek.com/sf
> _______________________________________________
> Quantlib-dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/quantlib-dev
>

--
Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others.
                                                -- Groucho Marx

[Luigi Ballabio-2]

At 05:08 PM 8/27/03 -0500, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
>Interesting. I don't get that -- the test suite runs fine once the package
>is installed. It just doesn't from 'make check'. I get
>
>[...]
>Testing old-style Monte Carlo single-factor pricers...
>Testing old-style Monte Carlo multi-factor pricers...
>
>OK (64 tests)

Dirk,
         it looks like it was trying to load the library you had previously
installed instead of the one you had just built---which caused it to fail
linking the shared library at run-time, but got resolved by installing the
new library. Maybe a linker-path thing?

Later,
         Luigi

[Dirk Eddelbuettel]

On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 08:59:32AM +0200, Luigi Ballabio wrote:

> At 05:08 PM 8/27/03 -0500, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
> >Interesting. I don't get that -- the test suite runs fine once the package
> >is installed. It just doesn't from 'make check'. I get
> >
> >[...]
> >Testing old-style Monte Carlo single-factor pricers...
> >Testing old-style Monte Carlo multi-factor pricers...
> >
> >OK (64 tests)
>
> Dirk,
>         it looks like it was trying to load the library you had previously
> installed instead of the one you had just built---which caused it to fail
> linking the shared library at run-time, but got resolved by installing the
> new library. Maybe a linker-path thing?

Possibly. Strange that we were not bitten by that before, and too bad we do
not get the testing results at built time.

So shall I go ahead and upload these 0.3.3 deb packages?

Dirk


--
Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others.
                                                -- Groucho Marx

[Luigi Ballabio-2]

At 05:23 AM 8/28/03 -0500, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
>So shall I go ahead and upload these 0.3.3 deb packages?

Ok, go ahead.

Bye,
         Luigi

[Dirk Eddelbuettel]

On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 12:38:15PM +0200, Luigi Ballabio wrote:
> At 05:23 AM 8/28/03 -0500, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
> >So shall I go ahead and upload these 0.3.3 deb packages?
>
> Ok, go ahead.

Done -- build reports will start to trickle in via
http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=edd in a few hours.  

I'll follow up with ql-ruby and ql-python tonight.

Dirk

--
Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others.
                                                -- Groucho Marx

[Liguo Song]

I finally found the trouble making optimization flag. It is
-ffast-math.

So, the test-suite will fail on the Testing Monte Carlo European
engines against analytic results with error:
 "McSimulation::value : max number of samples exceeded"

I am not sure whether it is due to the libraries or the test-suite
itself. I am going to leave out this troublesome optimization flag.

Hope someone else can learn from my mistake. :)

The final version RPM packages will be ready soon.


Liguo



On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, Liguo Song wrote:

> Hi, Dirk,
>
> I was just pulling my hair off for another problem with quantlib-test-suite. My
> RPM packages build fine, but when running quantlib-test-suite, it runs through
> all the tests, but ends up with the following error message:
>
>      !!!FAILURES!!!
>      Test Results:
>      Run:  64   Failures: 0   Errors: 1
>
>
>      1) test: Testing Monte Carlo European engines against analytic results (E)
>       "McSimulation::value : max number of samples exceeded"
>
>
> Right now, the quantlib-test-suite is a little out of my reach. Any input?
>
> BTW, if it helps, I am building the final tar balls that Luigi mentioned
> previously.
>
> Liguo
>
>
> Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
> > Using the exact same settings, compiler versions, ... as yesterday on the
> > previous golden master, I now fail when running make check.  I first noticed
> > it from the build log and, to exclude any terminal settings issues, re-ran it.
> >
> > It dies here:
> >
> > /usr/bin/make  check-TESTS
> > make[3]: Entering directory home/edd/src/debian/QuantLib-0.3.3/test-suite'
> >                    
> >                     Testing can never demonstrate the absence
> >                    of errors in software, only their presence.
> >                                            -- W.E. Dijkstra
> >  
> > ======================
> > Testing QuantLib 0.3.3
> > ======================
> > Testing joint calendars...
> > Testing cap/floor dependency on
> > strike...lt-quantlib-test-suite: relocation error: lt-quantlib-test-suite:
> > undefined symbol:
> > _ZN8QuantLib9CashFlows24FloatingRateCouponVectorERKSt6vectorIdSaIdEERKNS_4DateES8_iRKNS_8CalendarENS_17RollingConventionERKNS_6HandleINS_7Indexes5XiborEEEiS5_S8_
> > FAIL: quantlib-test-suite
> > ===================================================
> > 1 of 1 tests failed
> > Please report to [hidden email]
> > ===================================================
> >
> > I will hold back the upload til I here from Luigi. As I noted, all 62 of
> > these passed with flying colours yesterday.
> >
> > Liguo: I guess we could compare g++ et al version off-line if this works
> > for you. I am running Debian unstable, g++ is at 3.3.2-0pre1.
> >
> > Dirk
> >
>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
> Welcome to geek heaven.
> http://thinkgeek.com/sf
> _______________________________________________
> Quantlib-dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/quantlib-dev
>