Dear Neil, On Mon, Jul 02, 2007 at 01:03:54PM +0100, Neil Williams wrote: > > > version? Change to unstable? Based on your advice, the destination is now unstable. It's not worth tracking two separate streams when the real features are in this one. Also, it doesn't _break_ anything (other than itself, maybe, but that's something I'll have too check! :-p) > > I'll look into this. What is the alternative to lapack? > > I'm not sure there is one - lapack isn't the same kind of problem as OK, so here's the plan. I keep the dependency on lapack as it is, and keep checking bug #379288, which is what addresses our concern. Is this OK? > > > This does, however, raise a different issue - is there some way I can > > > test the package? I have added make check. Now, the updated package is at: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/l/libitpp/libitpp_3.99.2-1.dsc However, I am yet to try it out with GSL. Will give that a shot now, though I feel using GSL just for cblas, that too, when atlas is an optional dependency, is not worth it. Thanks a lot! Kumar -- Kumar Appaiah, 462, Jamuna Hostel, Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Chennai - 600 036
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature