Re: Minor CBLAS API changes

[Michael Banck <mbanck@gmx.net>]

Hi,

On Wed, Feb 26, 2003 at 11:21:54AM -0500, Camm Maguire wrote:
> Greetings!  In putting together a new atlas package, a few errors in
> the existing upstream CBLAS reference implementation have been
> discovered.  These basically are:

So let me guess: Upstream has no opinion on SOnames?

> 1) release blas/atlas packages with a new soname (3).  Advantages --
>    nothing will silently break, coexistence with existing stable
>    soname (2) packages.  Disadvantages -- everything depending on blas
>    must be recompiled  to use the new stuff, atlas is *huge* and it
>    will be in the archives twice.

I think that's the way to go. Of course it depends on my remark above -
if upstream stays with (2), we should perhaps reconsider.

The Reverse-Depends list does not seem too big (I maintain two of the
perhaps dozen(?) packages) to me and I'd be willing to help recompile
stuff if needed (but I doubt it).

> 2) release the new stuff with soname (2) and a big debconf warning.

ugh.


Michael