Re: Would an (l10n) NMU of atlas interfere with the gfortran trnasition?

[Matthias Klose <doko@cs.tu-berlin.de>]

Steve Langasek writes:
> On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 12:23:34PM +0100, Christian Perrier wrote:
> > (CC'ing Riku and Matthias for the sake of it. No need to CC me on
> > replies, I read -release)
> 
> > I was working on a possible NMU of atlas3 to fix its longstanding
> > debconf l10n issues.
> 
> > Raphaël Laboissière then mentioned /me that atlas3 will probably
> > disappear at some moment....but, on the other hand, the "atlas"
> > package could benefit from these debconf l10n improvements (strings
> > are identical among packages) such as things he reported in #472366
> 
> > So, an l10n NMU of atlas would make sense.
> 
> No comment on the transition issues, but I hope you're fixing these l10n
> issues by removing all of the idiotic debconf templates *completely* from
> the package.  No one needs a library package popping up a high-priority
> debconf note to read the contents of /proc/cpuinfo to them, and my gorge
> rises every time I see one of these debconf notes from the atlas family of
> packages.

I disagree somewhat ... please make the package fail to build in these
cases. afaiu the blas libraries are optimized libs which can be
replaced by refblas and lapack. Use these, and only include blas on
architectures where these libs do work.  And maybe upgrade atlas to
3.8 before, rumors say that release assistants have a hell of time to
burn ...

  Matthias