Thank for your both interesting answers.
I was answering to Julien's email but you (almost) answered to my next
questions Jason ;)
Le mardi 12 ao?t 2008 ? 10:12 -0400, Jason Riedy a ?crit :
And Sylvestre Ledru writes:
I am doing a mass cleanup of the lapack package for Debian.
Yeah, I've noticed the churn... Thanks!
* lapack.tgz is, I guess, the complete package. However, it
doesn't include the timing directory (which I can find in the
version 3.0). Is it normal ?
I believe the lapack-3.1.1.tar.gz copy of the reference BLAS now
is complete. It had lacked a few routines that LAPACK itself
does not use. The TIMING directory (I have no idea why Camm made
the patch such a pain by renaming everything, please don't follow
that tradition) was horribly out-of-date and misleading, so we
OK. Thanks for the information.
The Debian .tar.gz of Lapack is very different from the yours.
I was considering two way of doing it:
* keeping the "old" debian/rules. Therefor, first, I have to know how
Camm is building the .tar.gz. It is how I saw the difference about
timing (and others).
* Rewrite it from scratch using a slightly modified version of Lapack.
Obviously, the second version is more risky and needs more work but this
could worse it.
Anyway, I will drop the timing stuff.
* lapack.tgz doesn't contain the version number. Will it be possible to
add it in the name ?
Cute. It's not in the HTML index, but you can see it through
The top-level directory likely will stay LAPACK until larger
OK, I missed the FTP. I am going to use it instead of the HTML page (I am using
a dirty trick for now).
At some point in the future, LAPACK may be split into separate
archives similar to how everyone already packages it.
What do you mean by this ?
Under Debian, I have the feeling that it is the opposite (we have to do
a few "wget" to get a "full archive").
Jason, Debian GNU/Linux user for, oh, 11+ years...
Cool, that will be very helpful then !