Hi, I'm really interested in examples from c.d.o :)
not about this bug, but about some packages I comaintain that might have
benefits from this!
(sorry but I cant search from my phone...)
cheers,
G
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
<https://overview.mail.yahoo.com/mobile/?.src=Android>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From*:"Ghislain Vaillant" <ghisvail@gmail.com>
*Date*:Thu, 1 Oct, 2015 at 19:09
*Subject*:Bug#800600: RFS: arrayfire/3.1.2+dfsg1-2
On 01/10/15 16:20, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote:
> control: owner -1 !
>
> Hi,
>
> the packaging looks good, however I'm not sure about this [1]
>
> apt-get install libblas.so
> Reading package lists... Done
> Building dependency tree
> Reading state information... Done
> Package libblas.so is a virtual package provided by:
> libopenblas-dev 0.2.14-1
> libblas-dev 1.2.20110419-10
> libatlas-base-dev 3.10.2-7
> You should explicitly select one to install.
>
>
> [1]
https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/debian-science/packages/arrayfire.git/commit/?id=db0fef7ddf6bdaecb49196c78ea64d87446b11d6
>
>
> cheers,
>
> G.
>
> You should explicitly select one to install.
Which is what libblas-dev | libblas.so is supposed to do (default to
libblas-dev if no existing libblas.so). FYI, There are other packages
adopting the same technique (see c.d.n).
Tested both on my local machine which has libopenblas-dev installed and
a chroot which then installs libblas-dev and liblapack-dev.
As a result, the binary package gets a Depends on libblas3 |
libblas.so.3 and a liblapack3 | liblapack.so.3, which is generic way of
handling blas and lapack via update-alternatives.
Ghis