[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Status of gfortran transition

On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 10:04:37AM +0530, Kumar Appaiah wrote:
> Dear Debian Toolchain,
> I just downloaded Lapack 3.1.1, and I used the refblas3gf to link
> against it. I didn't use the Debian packaging, but the plain Makefile
> provided for gfortran, along with the -fPIC option. The resulting
> library gives the following ldd:
> % ldd liblapack.so.3
>         linux-gate.so.1 =>  (0xffffe000)
>         libblas.so.3 => /usr/lib/libblas.so.3 (0xb7a01000)
>         libc.so.6 => /lib/i686/cmov/libc.so.6 (0xb78b9000)
>         /lib/ld-linux.so.2 (0x80000000)
> However, I am unable to test it, since it would require a rebuild of
> all depending packages with refblas3gf and then a build with
> lapack3gf. Please tell me if I am wrong.

One more observation is that this .so file seems a lot smaller than
the lapack3 one, so I guess I am goofing up something in the build
process, missing some things. I guess I'll have to carefully go
through the old lapack debian/rules and adapt a similar build
procedure. Of course, it'd be nice if someone could do it before me!

I also advocate the lapack should be repackaged, and now, a patch
mechanism like dpatch should be used to organize the patches a bit
more neatly.

In the slightly longer term, however, I would request that the package
be team maintained and the packaging be put on some Alioth resource,
like collab-maint Git etc. I believe this would help a lot, as
critical packages like lapack3 and refblas3 which have numerous
rdepends should, IMHO, be updatable by many.

Kumar Appaiah,
458, Jamuna Hostel,
Indian Institute of Technology Madras,
Chennai - 600 036

Reply to: