On Tue, 2022-02-22 at 11:02 +0200, Marek Nečada wrote: > > Is there a particular reason for *not* having libflame as an alternative > to liblapack? (I am using lapack via lapacke and it would be really > convenient to just switch the backend via update-alternatives.)
I understand what you meant and that's one of the goals of libflame packaging. Currently that compatibility layer does not fully match with the lapack ABI so we cannot enable it by force without adding additional code. -- debian-science-maintainers mailing list [email protected] https://alioth-lists.debian.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debian-science-maintainers
