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 From:"Ghislain Vaillant" <ghisv...@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
