Sounds like a ebuild dependency bug, or possibly a bad mix of stable and non-stable packages that haven't been sussed out fully.
Not a good long-term solution, especially if you're forgetful like me, but as a test you might try creating a symlink for libapack.so.0 pointing to libapack.so.3 and see if octave runs. Best to remove that more or less right away but it might get you through a test period waiting for the ebuild to get fixed. - Mark On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 6:59 AM Mick <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thursday, 6 February 2020 13:44:22 GMT [email protected] wrote: > > Mick: > > ... > > > > > I don't have these packages on my systems to check, but does 'eselect > > > lapack list' reveal anything amiss? > > > > ... > > > > $ eselect lapack list > > Available LAPACK (lib) candidates: > > (none found) > > Available LAPACK (lib64) candidates: > > (none found) > > $ eselect blas list > > Available BLAS/CBLAS (lib) candidates: > > (none found) > > Available BLAS/CBLAS (lib64) candidates: > > (none found) > > > > and after rebuilding lapack with eselect-ldso > > > > $ eselect lapack list > > Available LAPACK (lib) candidates: > > (none found) > > Available LAPACK (lib64) candidates: > > [1] reference * > > $ eselect blas list > > Available BLAS/CBLAS (lib) candidates: > > (none found) > > Available BLAS/CBLAS (lib64) candidates: > > [1] reference * > > > > still same problem. > > > > recompiling octave, same problem. > > recompiling octave with static-libs, same problem. > > > > Regards, > > /Karl Hammar > > Unless someone shows up with more knowledge on the specifics it would be > worth > posting a bug, or contacting the maintainer for suggestions. > -- > Regards, > > Mick
