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

Re: gfortran-4.3 the default gfortran compiler, blas and lapack uploaded to unstable

Kevin B. McCarty writes:
> Here is a crazy idea: what about having the libdevel symlinks
> /usr/lib/libblas.so and /usr/lib/liblapack.so (and /usr/lib/libblas.a
> etc.) themselves be managed via alternatives?  Symlinks for the
> reference implementations, and their actual static libraries, could be
> put in a directory /usr/lib/netlib/ (or such) if desired.  The main
> downside I can see is that a transition from the current situation to
> this state of affairs could be quite finicky.

Please no; you don't have any possibility about enforcing a specific
alternative for a build. So depending how these are set, the uploads

> > Yes, this is possible with Camm's choice; however if you look at the
> > fftw package this not done.  Are there any other libraries which are
> > currently used/referenced which whould be released with lenny in both
> > g77 and gfortran versions?
> For backwards compatibility purposes, I don't think it's necessary to
> keep the g77-based libraries actually as part of Debian for lenny.  It
> ought to suffice (and I'm planning for my packages) to keep parallel
> installability *possible* for gfortran- and g77-based runtime library
> packages; not worth bothering for the libdevel packages though.  This
> compatibility would be at the maintainer's choice, assuming that all
> packages s/he depended on were also parallel-installable.
> This way users can keep the obsolete g77-based runtime lib packages on
> their systems, even while installing the new gfortran-based ones.  They
> can also reinstall the old packages from snapshot.debian.net if needed.
>  I'm adding an entry in cernlib's debian/NEWS file to that effect, also
> advising that users recompile all local code with gfortran.

yes, this sounds sensible.


Reply to: