| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
On Thu, 23 Mar 2006, Donnie Berkholz wrote: |
| 5 |
> > Personally, I have been happily using blas-atlas for |
| 6 |
> > a while now and would be ok with removing them if nothing |
| 7 |
> > in the tree depends on them directly. Some of the other |
| 8 |
> > devs might have a different opinion, though. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> The first time I read this as removing the *-reference packages, but |
| 11 |
> that can't be what you mean. If you're saying we should remove the old |
| 12 |
> sci-libs/{blas,lapack}, then I entirely agree assuming *-atlas is stable |
| 13 |
> on all arches blas/lapack were and nothing still hard deps on them. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> If you go to a new-style virtual, you have the option of either having |
| 16 |
> *-atlas or *-reference stable on the same arches. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Hi Donnie, |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
I apologize for not being very clear in my response and I was indeed |
| 21 |
refering to removing the old sci-libs/{blas,lapack} packages. I'll |
| 22 |
check into the arch issues over the weekend. ppc/ppc64 might be a |
| 23 |
problem since they seem to have problems with blas-atlas |
| 24 |
(bug #120775). |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Thanks, |
| 27 |
Markus |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
- -- |
| 31 |
Markus Dittrich (markusle) |
| 32 |
Gentoo Linux Developer |
| 33 |
Scientific applications |
| 34 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 35 |
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux) |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
iD8DBQFEIulKxlRwCwb7k40RAgHpAJ9YVbwyMta7R0BxGA2G95ywofcBkwCffCly |
| 38 |
ioibAWKwWAjZg/F1csqLpv0= |
| 39 |
=iF/Q |
| 40 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 41 |
-- |
| 42 |
gentoo-science@g.o mailing list |
Archives