On 24/01/2008, Matthias Klose wrote: > > Sorry to interrupt the thread, but if the Ubuntu build logs are > > anything to go by, I guess we could face lapack FTBFSing on us on > > several architectures (notably, even i386). > > > > https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/lapack/3.0.20000531a-1.1ubuntu1 > > no, that's a buildd problem.
Oh, sorry for the incorrect reaction. Then I guess things are on track after all (Hooray!). > > I would, therefore, try out two things; one would be a totally > > unpatched Lapack, and the second level would be to painstakingly merge > > Camm's patches with the new Lapack. However, the latter, I assure you, > > will be _really_ painful; I had to spend several hours for Blas, and > > if that is any indication, re-patching Lapack is going to be worse > > (though I am willing to do it, should the need to do it arise). But, > > as always it'd be great if someone else could do this before me! :-) > > > > (Please note that I am no expert in either the toolchain or Fortran, > > but I just hope my remarks make sense. Apologies for any mistakes I > > make). > > I can sponsor a new lapack upload for experimental, once the current > upload is out of the NEW queue. I will work on that next week and definitely give you a package for upload. Thanks, and sorry for the false alarm. Kumar -- Kumar Appaiah, 458, Jamuna Hostel, Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Chennai - 600036 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
