Re: ITR: libitpp (updated package)
On 02/07/07, Neil Williams wrote:
Is this the same cblas as usr/lib/libgslcblas.so.0 in libgsl0
http://packages.debian.org/stable/math/libgsl0
?
This is what I was referring to.
libgsl0 may be large but it doesn't bring in any extraneous
dependencies.
I'll give it a shot.
It only seems to increase the risk of mysterious bugs if you are using
two different fortran libraries that are built against *VERY* different
compilers : gcc-3.4 and gcc-4.2. Having one package depend on both
libgfortran2 and libg2c0 could be a source of weird bugs. As maintainer
of libitpp, it will be your job to fix them! (in conjunction with
libitpp upstream). GnuCash has had similar problems - even now it still
depends on libglib1 because of a dependency on an old library that has
not been updated. (The bug report is over a year old now.) These things
tend to bite eventually because the old library has to be removed from
Debian at some point.
Would you advise me to retain the lapack dependency and stay with
refblas, or add the gsl dependency? Also, I am not clear how to avoid
the lapack dependency, which forces me to depend on an old compiler.
lapack would appear to be less of a potential headache than atlas and
the way that the libraries are arranged means that atlas is still a
usable alternative when installing the binaries. It is just worth
being aware that lapack may complicate things when trying to fix bugs
in libitpp.
Well, since I have to depend lapack for features, I am unable to
figure out a way to avoid the old gcc depends (through libg2c0).
I think you could at least try a pbuilder run with--with-cblas=gslcblas
enabled in your ./configure arguments.
I'll do that.
Thanks.
Kumar
--
Kumar Appaiah,
462, Jamuna Hostel,
Indian Institute of Technology Madras,
Chennai - 600036
Reply to: