Le lundi 11 mai 2020 à 21:10 +0200, Sébastien Villemot a écrit : > Le mardi 12 mai 2020 à 01:48 +0800, Drew Parsons a écrit : > > 2b) A separate thing to look into is whether the alternative for > > libblas.so.3 can be slaved on to libblas.so (or vice versa) so they > > don't have to be configured separately. If there's likely to be a > > libblas.so.4 then it makes more sense to keep them separate, but > > it's > > been libblas.so.3 since the 1980s I believe. They are different > > packages so it's not so straightforward to slave-link them to one > > another. But the HDF5 maintainer recently found a way to do it (to > > link > > hdf5-mpi.pc against the preferred MPI alternative, see > > libhdf5-openmpi-dev.postinst) > > I think the difficulty here is that libblas.so and libblas.so.3 live in > different packages (-dev versus shared library). Sorry I had overlooked your remark about HDF5. What is done there looks a bit hackish, but if it works and is robust, why not… Note however that the libblas.so alternative should actually not matter much. Since the various implementations are supposed to be ABI- compatible, whichever is used at link time should normally be irrelevant. -- ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ Sébastien Villemot ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Debian Developer ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ https://sebastien.villemot.name ⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ https://www.debian.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part