Re: ITR: libitpp (updated package)
On Mon, Jul 02, 2007 at 03:59:42PM +0530, Kumar Appaiah wrote:
> On 02/07/07, Neil Williams wrote:
[snip]
> >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).
You might be interested to learn of the proposed release goal for lenny
of removing g77/gcc-3.4 in favor of gfortran. Read all about it at:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-toolchain/2007/07/msg00000.html
--Joe
PS - I know nothing about fortran, just happened to read this thread and
then read the about the transition on -release :)
Reply to: