On Tue, Oct 23, 2007 at 06:22:33PM +0530, Kumar Appaiah wrote: > I have managed to strip the rules file of the old lapack, and remove > all documentation as well as patches with the aim of just getting a > working lapack3gf. IMO, I think I have achieved it. Please note the > following carefully, though:
Thanks for your effort. > 3. The lapack3-doc package is empty. This is not important at this stage. > 4. I have removed ALL patches. I think we need to review which ones are neccessary. > 5. I have built the package on an i386, and there is no guarantee that > it will work on other architectures. That's why we'll upload it to experimental. > See; no libg2c0. Yay! :-) > > So, I believe this does the job. So, what I would request you to do > is, check out the lapack package, and see if it builds OK. Note that > you need the refblas3-dev from experimental, since that pulls in > refblas3gf. Once you get this, I would encourage you to try building > IT++ as well, since it has a lot of test which might be a useful > indicator of the wellness of my package. I will, once I'm at home. > OK, so here's the stuff: > All files (debs etc.) are here: http://kumar.travisbsd.org/debpackages/ > > The new Lapack: > http://kumar.travisbsd.org/debpackages/lapack3_3.1.1-0.1.dsc I see there is also same package in mentors.debian.net. I think it's probably better to use mentors for passing packages (if it is not too cumbersome for you) > The new IT++ (didn't change to libitpp6gf or anything...): > http://kumar.travisbsd.org/debpackages/libitpp_4.0.0-4.dsc > > My Lapack build log: > http://kumar.travisbsd.org/debpackages/lapack_build_log.txt.gz > > I hope this is a helpful step in moving ahead in terms of the > transition. Please ask me any queries you may have, though I myself am > quite new to these things. -- "rm -rf" only sounds scary if you don't have backups -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
