-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, 23 Mar 2006, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> > 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.
Hi Donnie,
I apologize for not being very clear in my response and I was indeed
refering to removing the old sci-libs/{blas,lapack} packages. I'll
check into the arch issues over the weekend. ppc/ppc64 might be a
problem since they seem to have problems with blas-atlas
(bug #120775).
Thanks,
Markus
- --
Markus Dittrich (markusle)
Gentoo Linux Developer
Scientific applications
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFEIulKxlRwCwb7k40RAgHpAJ9YVbwyMta7R0BxGA2G95ywofcBkwCffCly
ioibAWKwWAjZg/F1csqLpv0=
=iF/Q
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
[email protected] mailing list
