First Last Prev Next    No search results available      Search page      Enter new bug
Bug#: 30463
Alias:
Product:
Component:
Status: RESOLVED
Resolution: FIXED
Assigned To: Gentoo Science Related Packages <sci@gentoo.org>
Hardware:
OS:
Version:
Priority:
Severity:
Reporter: Derek Dolney <nospam@dolney.com>
Add CC:
CC:
Remove selected CCs
URL:
Summary:
Status Whiteboard:
Keywords:

Filename Description Type Creator Created Size Actions
lapack-3.0-r1.ebuild lapack-3.0-r1.ebuild text/plain Derek Dolney 2003-10-05 20:42 0000 2.63 KB Details
lapack-20020531-20021004.patch lapack-20020531-20021004.patch patch Derek Dolney 2003-10-05 20:46 0000 1.02 MB Details | Diff
lapack-gentoo.patch lapack-gentoo.patch patch Derek Dolney 2003-10-05 20:47 0000 1.24 KB Details | Diff
f77-reference f77-reference text/plain Derek Dolney 2003-10-05 20:48 0000 436 bytes Details
Create a New Attachment (proposed patch, testcase, etc.) View All

Bug 30463 depends on: 30460 Show dependency tree
Bug 30463 blocks:
Votes: 0    Show votes for this bug    Vote for this bug

Additional Comments: (this is where you put emerge --info)


Not eligible to see or edit group visibility for this bug.






View Bug Activity   |   Format For Printing   |   XML   |   Clone This Bug

Description:   Opened: 2003-10-05 20:42 0000 
This ebuild will build shared and static versions of the netlib reference
implementation of LAPACK. Please see the comments in bug 30453.

It uses the lapack-config tool (bug 30460).

I've tested building with and without USE="ifc". Either way, I can link to the resulting libraries with g77 or ifc.

------- Comment #1 From Derek Dolney 2003-10-05 20:42:58 0000 ------- 
Created an attachment (id=18843) [edit]
lapack-3.0-r1.ebuild

------- Comment #2 From Derek Dolney 2003-10-05 20:46:12 0000 ------- 
Created an attachment (id=18844) [edit]
lapack-20020531-20021004.patch

Minor patches from http://www.netlib.org/lapack/release_notes.html
that haven't made it into the release tarball yet.

------- Comment #3 From Derek Dolney 2003-10-05 20:47:32 0000 ------- 
Created an attachment (id=18845) [edit]
lapack-gentoo.patch

------- Comment #4 From Derek Dolney 2003-10-05 20:48:29 0000 ------- 
Created an attachment (id=18846) [edit]
f77-reference

lapack-config profile (see bug 30460)

------- Comment #5 From George Shapovalov 2004-06-10 18:59:34 0000 ------- 
Hi Derek.

Going through this. I actually did few more changes to lapack-atlas that will reflect this one too. I moved common files to mirrors, no need to keep dups in portage tree. Now all the epatches will take them from DISTDIR instead of FILESDIR.

I have a question wrt g77. Do we always need it for the -reference one just as for the lapack-atlas or only if ifc is not available?

George

------- Comment #6 From Derek Dolney 2004-06-14 05:15:37 0000 ------- 
George,

The *-reference builds CAN use ifc exclusively, so that if ifc is USEd, then there is no need for g77.

------- Comment #7 From George Shapovalov 2004-06-14 19:03:46 0000 ------- 
Ok, lapack-reference in, please test.
I had to add --tag in a few places, also libtool said:

libtool: install: warning: remember to run `libtool --finish /usr/lib/lapack/reference'

which I am not too sure where to put. Should it go right after the install line (in src_install), or should it be just ignored (as ebuild takes care of the rest anyway)?

I'll add virtual upon successful testreport :).

George

------- Comment #8 From Derek Dolney 2004-06-24 10:58:28 0000 ------- 
George,

Forgive the delay. I've finally tested the lapack-reference in portage, and it works fine, both with g77 and with ifc.

lapack --finish just runs ldconfig (at least on linux, not sure about other OSs), but portage nicely does this after pkg_install or whatever. I've never had problems linking with these shared libs, and I do use them regularly.

------- Comment #9 From Danny van Dyk (RETIRED) 2005-02-16 16:44:02 0000 ------- 
Hm can this one finally be closed ? Package is in the tree for months
already...

------- Comment #10 From Marcus D. Hanwell 2005-04-18 16:23:21 0000 ------- 
I think this one is done as far as I can tell. Please reopen if I am mistaken.
First Last Prev Next    No search results available      Search page      Enter new bug