Package Details: mosek 1:11.1.5-1

Git Clone URL: https://aur.archlinux.org/mosek.git (read-only, click to copy)
Package Base: mosek
Description: A commercial solver for mathematical optimization problems.
Upstream URL: https://www.mosek.com
Licenses: custom
Submitter: ido
Maintainer: Viech (ido)
Last Packager: Viech
Votes: 6
Popularity: 0.000099
First Submitted: 2013-09-22 04:38 (UTC)
Last Updated: 2026-02-10 10:57 (UTC)

Dependencies (5)

Required by (3)

Sources (1)

Latest Comments

1 2 3 Next › Last »

dino6 commented on 2026-02-10 11:02 (UTC)

@Viech thanks a lot! that was very fast!

Viech commented on 2026-02-10 11:00 (UTC)

@dino6: Indeed; sorry for missing the out-of-date notification. Updating the version number and checksum in the PKGBUILD (or setting the checksum to 'SKIP') will normally do the trick.

dino6 commented on 2026-02-10 10:50 (UTC)

don't know if this is the place to say this but even though the package is out of date and doesnt work for me anymore, the PKGBUILD works just fine for me if the pkgver and sha256sums variables are updated to the latest MOSEK version

Viech commented on 2025-02-08 11:15 (UTC)

@ido this makes sense; I'll leave the epoch in place.

For me this package recently gives ImportError: libmosek64.so.10.2: cannot enable executable stack as shared object requires: Invalid argument. Is this something that affects other users as well and should I work around it in the package by adding execstack as a buildtime dependency and including execstack -c libmosek64.so.10.2?

ido commented on 2025-01-12 20:24 (UTC)

I always thought epoch numbers were one-way doors, because removing it would have the effect of not triggering updates—that is, removing would have the effect of using epoch 0 which would be a lower version number. I do not have a strong preference but we should do what is right for the consumers of the package. Epochs are useful in case Mosek’s versioning scheme changes, which it has once before.

Viech commented on 2025-01-12 18:46 (UTC)

Do you have an opinion on dropping versus keeping the epoch? It would trigger a downgrade notice for users but I'm not sure if it should be there in the first place as MOSEK seem to never have changed their version scheme apart from its varying depth.

Viech commented on 2025-01-12 18:05 (UTC)

Thanks! Sure, I'll keep you as a co-maintainer. :)

ido commented on 2025-01-12 17:52 (UTC)

I’ve promoted you to maintainer. I’m still listed as a co-maintainer in case you need help, but that’s up to you. :)

ido commented on 2025-01-12 17:44 (UTC)

Sounds good!

Viech commented on 2025-01-12 14:22 (UTC)

@ido: Maybe it would be good if I take over the package at this point.

1 2 3 Next › Last »