On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 10:04:37AM +0530, Kumar Appaiah wrote: > Dear Debian Toolchain, > > I just downloaded Lapack 3.1.1, and I used the refblas3gf to link > against it. I didn't use the Debian packaging, but the plain Makefile > provided for gfortran, along with the -fPIC option. The resulting > library gives the following ldd: > > % ldd liblapack.so.3 > linux-gate.so.1 => (0xffffe000) > libblas.so.3 => /usr/lib/libblas.so.3 (0xb7a01000) > libc.so.6 => /lib/i686/cmov/libc.so.6 (0xb78b9000) > /lib/ld-linux.so.2 (0x80000000) > > However, I am unable to test it, since it would require a rebuild of > all depending packages with refblas3gf and then a build with > lapack3gf. Please tell me if I am wrong.
One more observation is that this .so file seems a lot smaller than the lapack3 one, so I guess I am goofing up something in the build process, missing some things. I guess I'll have to carefully go through the old lapack debian/rules and adapt a similar build procedure. Of course, it'd be nice if someone could do it before me! :-) I also advocate the lapack should be repackaged, and now, a patch mechanism like dpatch should be used to organize the patches a bit more neatly. In the slightly longer term, however, I would request that the package be team maintained and the packaging be put on some Alioth resource, like collab-maint Git etc. I believe this would help a lot, as critical packages like lapack3 and refblas3 which have numerous rdepends should, IMHO, be updatable by many. Thanks. -- Kumar Appaiah, 458, Jamuna Hostel, Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Chennai - 600 036 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
