Hi Drew, Le mardi 12 mai 2020 à 01:48 +0800, Drew Parsons a écrit : > 2) The naming of the alternatives links is not intuitive, marked > arch-specifically as libblas.so-x86_64-linux-gnu, > libblas.so.3-x86_64-linux-gnu, etc. > Normally it would just be libblas.so, as in "update-alternatives > --config libblas.so", or better still "update-alternatives --config > blas". > Is it really necessary to include the arch in the alternative name? This is necessary for multiarch, see #770290. > 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). -- ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ Sébastien Villemot ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Debian Developer ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ https://sebastien.villemot.name ⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ https://www.debian.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part