All, Based on the recent discussion regarding an approach to packaging lapack, I have put together a trial package for evaluation by core maintainers. As noted in the previous discussions, lapack is hardly worth the trouble without an optimized blas, but this is only available via an installation of atlas from source.
Accordingly, I have merged the upstream lapack-3.0 and atlas-3.6.0 upstream sources for this lapack-3.0-1 package. The binary distribution and the normal build from source create a lapack library and a non-optimized reference implementation blas library from lapack source. Instructions are included in the CYGWIN-PATCHES subdir of the source distribution which allow building of locally optimized versions of these libraries using the lapack base plus the atlas source. The resulting dlls are then to be installed by hand in the /usr/local/bin subdirectory. This insures two things: 1) they will be loaded at run time instead of the nonoptimized dlls due to /usr/local/bin occuring before /usr/bin in the path set by /etc/profile; 2) they will not be overwritten by an upgrade or reinstallation of the binary distribution, which installs its dlls in /usr/bin. Please look over the structure of the package, and let me know if this is an acceptable packaging approach. It is located at ftp://antiskid.homelinux.net/pub/lapack/setup.hint ftp://antiskid.homelinux.net/pub/lapack/lapack-3.0-1.tar.bz2 ftp://antiskid.homelinux.net/pub/lapack/lapack-3.0-1-src.tar.bz2 I have done preliminary testing with octave-2.1.71 installed from source, and the package seems to work as designed. Installation of optimized dlls speeds up many matrix operations by a factor of 10.
