On Tue, 3 Jul 2007 11:26:34 +0530 Kumar Appaiah <akumar@ee.iitm.ac.in> wrote: > > > 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? Yes, that will be fine. > Now, the updated package is at: > http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/l/libitpp/libitpp_3.99.2-1.dsc Checking it now. If it builds OK, I'll upload. > 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. OK. -- Neil Williams ============= http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
Attachment:
pgp6e1F5rGPZD.pgp
Description: PGP signature