Re: A basic lapack3gf package ready! (was Re: Status of gfortran transition)
On Tue, Oct 23, 2007 at 06:22:33PM +0530, Kumar Appaiah wrote:
> I have managed to strip the rules file of the old lapack, and remove
> all documentation as well as patches with the aim of just getting a
> working lapack3gf. IMO, I think I have achieved it. Please note the
> following carefully, though:
Thanks for your effort.
> 3. The lapack3-doc package is empty.
This is not important at this stage.
> 4. I have removed ALL patches.
I think we need to review which ones are neccessary.
> 5. I have built the package on an i386, and there is no guarantee that
> it will work on other architectures.
That's why we'll upload it to experimental.
> See; no libg2c0. Yay! :-)
>
> So, I believe this does the job. So, what I would request you to do
> is, check out the lapack package, and see if it builds OK. Note that
> you need the refblas3-dev from experimental, since that pulls in
> refblas3gf. Once you get this, I would encourage you to try building
> IT++ as well, since it has a lot of test which might be a useful
> indicator of the wellness of my package.
I will, once I'm at home.
> OK, so here's the stuff:
> All files (debs etc.) are here: http://kumar.travisbsd.org/debpackages/
>
> The new Lapack:
> http://kumar.travisbsd.org/debpackages/lapack3_3.1.1-0.1.dsc
I see there is also same package in mentors.debian.net. I think it's
probably better to use mentors for passing packages (if it is not too
cumbersome for you)
> The new IT++ (didn't change to libitpp6gf or anything...):
> http://kumar.travisbsd.org/debpackages/libitpp_4.0.0-4.dsc
>
> My Lapack build log:
> http://kumar.travisbsd.org/debpackages/lapack_build_log.txt.gz
>
> I hope this is a helpful step in moving ahead in terms of the
> transition. Please ask me any queries you may have, though I myself am
> quite new to these things.
--
"rm -rf" only sounds scary if you don't have backups
Reply to: