Kevin B. McCarty writes: > Here is a crazy idea: what about having the libdevel symlinks > /usr/lib/libblas.so and /usr/lib/liblapack.so (and /usr/lib/libblas.a > etc.) themselves be managed via alternatives? Symlinks for the > reference implementations, and their actual static libraries, could be > put in a directory /usr/lib/netlib/ (or such) if desired. The main > downside I can see is that a transition from the current situation to > this state of affairs could be quite finicky.
Please no; you don't have any possibility about enforcing a specific alternative for a build. So depending how these are set, the uploads differ. > > Yes, this is possible with Camm's choice; however if you look at the > > fftw package this not done. Are there any other libraries which are > > currently used/referenced which whould be released with lenny in both > > g77 and gfortran versions? > > For backwards compatibility purposes, I don't think it's necessary to > keep the g77-based libraries actually as part of Debian for lenny. It > ought to suffice (and I'm planning for my packages) to keep parallel > installability *possible* for gfortran- and g77-based runtime library > packages; not worth bothering for the libdevel packages though. This > compatibility would be at the maintainer's choice, assuming that all > packages s/he depended on were also parallel-installable. > > This way users can keep the obsolete g77-based runtime lib packages on > their systems, even while installing the new gfortran-based ones. They > can also reinstall the old packages from snapshot.debian.net if needed. > I'm adding an entry in cernlib's debian/NEWS file to that effect, also > advising that users recompile all local code with gfortran. yes, this sounds sensible. Matthias -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
