| 1 |
On 08/04/19 05:17, Mo Zhou wrote [as excerpted]: |
| 2 |
> Hi list, |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> I'm going to participate the gsoc project "BLAS and LAPACK runtime"[1]. |
| 5 |
> However it seems to pose a significant change on Gentoo Science Team's |
| 6 |
> packages, so I'd better ask for approval first before really working |
| 7 |
> on this, in case anybody disagree with the proposal. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> <snip> |
| 10 |
> The proposed solution involes no usage of USE flag, or eselect feature. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> Objective of this project: |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> 1. Integrate update-alternatives mechanism into Gentoo's reference blas, |
| 15 |
> i.e. netlib blas' packaging. |
| 16 |
Whilst I'm, by all means, no expert on this; I think when you look into it, |
| 17 |
you'll find that the eselect and update-alternatives functions are highly |
| 18 |
equivalent, so you should find it feasible to do the port the other way |
| 19 |
around, and translate the 'update-alternatives' to 'eselect'. Ideally if |
| 20 |
you can keep within the frameworks Gentoo already provides, this should |
| 21 |
make integration and maintenance a little easier! |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Otherwise, it sounds like you've got the size of the problem in hand, and I |
| 24 |
wish you all the best with the project! |
| 25 |
Best regards, |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
veremitz/Michael. |
Archives