Markus Dittrich wrote: > Hi Sebastien, > > Thank you for bringing this up and I apologize for the > somewhat delayed reply. Below are some of my thoughts/comments. > > On Mon, 20 Mar 2006, Sebastien Fabbro wrote: >>> * Should we really keep those obsolete packages: >>> - sci-libs/atlas: now decomposed as sci-libs/blas-atlas and >>> sci-libs/lapack-atlas >>> - sci-libs/blas: redundant with sci-libs/blas-reference >>> - sci-libs/lapack: redundant with sci-libs/lapack-reference > > Personally, I have been happily using blas-atlas for > a while now and would be ok with removing them if nothing > in the tree depends on them directly. Some of the other > devs might have a different opinion, though.
The first time I read this as removing the *-reference packages, but
that can't be what you mean. If you're saying we should remove the old
sci-libs/{blas,lapack}, then I entirely agree assuming *-atlas is stable
on all arches blas/lapack were and nothing still hard deps on them.
If you go to a new-style virtual, you have the option of either having
*-atlas or *-reference stable on the same arches.
Thanks,
Donnie
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
