Re: [gentoo-science] blas/lapack status

[Donnie Berkholz]

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