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

Re: Status of gfortran transition


OK, just found out (should have known this before) that gfortran
compiled liblapack (for example) will segfault when run against g77
compiled blas.  It seems that an soname bump is called for here.  If
so, is the gf appendage needed?

Would this not work:

Real packages:

refblas3 -> libblas4 et.al.
lapack3 -> liblapack4 et.al.

Virtual packages:

libblas.so.3 -> libblas.so.4, or libblas4 if that is legal
libblas-3.so -> libblas-4.so, or libblas4-dev if that works

Then only conflict/replace on the -dev packages, allowing older g77
runtime to coexist with newer gfortran.  In this case, I don't see why
we can't just upload to unstable.

Please object if this is wrong in any way -- it appears best to me at
the moment so I'll try heading in that direction.

Take care,

Matthias Klose <doko@cs.tu-berlin.de> writes:

> Kumar Appaiah writes:
> > On 17/10/2007, Kamaraju S Kusumanchi wrote:
> > > I think the main hold up is due to the atlas and lapack libraries. They
> > > still depend upon g77. Would anyone be interested to NMU them or should the
> > > NMUs be done only to fix RC bugs?
> If you do prepare NMUs, please upload those to experimental first; we
> didn't hear back from Camm now for some weeks, so the best thing would
> be to go ahead. As nearly all other stuff depends on refblas, lapack
> and atlas, these should be done before uploading anything to unstable.
> > I think we should move the discussion to debian-devel. I am mailing
> > there, will you also please follow the thread?
> It would be nice to keep the discussion in one place. some people from
> the gcc fortran list might listen here, and it's quiet enough that
> they can follow here (which is not the case for debian-devel).
>   Matthias
> PS: Riku, didn't you start with the atlas packages?

Camm Maguire			     			camm@enhanced.com
"The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens."  --  Baha'u'llah

Reply to: