Re: Status of gfortran transition
Camm Maguire writes:
> Greetings!
>
> Just uploaded refblas3_1.2-9 to experimental. Hope to get lapack and
> atlas in in the next few days.
>
> Is this a good time to address this:
>
> Now running lintian...
> W: refblas3gf: package-name-doesnt-match-sonames libblas3
> Finished running lintian.
>
> I distinctly remember being required to come up with the naming scheme
> (refblas3 provides libblas.so.3 (virtual)) to get around difficulties
> with ldconfig and earlier incarnations of the packaging system (in
> conflict/replace with the earlier libblas) though I cannot recall the
> precise details at this point. It would make sense to call the
> package libblas3/libblas3-dev and have these also name virtual
> packages which atlas could provide. Will this work? Anyone have a
> better idea? Now would appear a good time to put in what we'll want
> to have for the next few years.
any package name different to the existing one will work, as long as
you conflict/replace with it. renaming -dev packages is generally
unwanted because we need to change packages build-depending on this
package, but we need to do this anyway (most packages have a b-d on
g77 which has to be changed to gfortran).
> Finally, it appears as though we might no longer need to mess with
> /etc/ld.so.conf to get the preferential loading -- that automatically
> certain subdirs of /usr/lib are searched by ld.so first. Any
> succinct update on the latest here would be most appreciated.
that should work in etch, lenny and sid.
> What is the plan from experimental to unstable?
I'd like to see refblas/lapack/atlas uploaded to experimental first so
that they are in the archive, and then upload all three of them to
unstable. this will avoid many days with broken packages in unstable.
making these uploads available while they are in NEW would help others
prepare their packages.
once you're ready for uploading to unstable the message to d-d-a needs
to be sent (maybe updated).
Matthias
Reply to: