2009/1/4 Jeff Spaleta <jspaleta@xxxxxxxxx>: > On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 1:53 PM, Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> But this is in no way a complete regression test. > > > I'm quite frankly not as competent as I would like to be with regard > to runtime linker logic. > So the issue may not be as dire as it could be...if the affected > system in the bugreport is suffering due to local linker logic > reconfiguration. Jury is out on that. > > But I do think its somewhat problematic in our packaging that lapack > and atlas expose the same provides. > F10: repoquery --whatprovides liblapack.so.3 > atlas-0:3.6.0-15.fc10.i386 > atlas-3dnow-0:3.6.0-15.fc10.i386 > atlas-sse-0:3.6.0-15.fc10.i386 > atlas-sse2-0:3.6.0-15.fc10.i386 > lapack-0:3.1.1-4.fc10.i386 > FWIW the same situation is true for libblas: $ repoquery --whatprovides libblas.so.3 atlas-sse-0:3.6.0-15.fc10.i386 atlas-3dnow-0:3.6.0-15.fc10.i386 blas-0:3.1.1-4.fc10.i386 atlas-sse2-0:3.6.0-15.fc10.i386 atlas-0:3.6.0-15.fc10.i386 (where blas is a subpackage of lapack). Fortunately the blas interface is defined and so these should be abi compatible. A knowledgeable user writing her own programs would ensure that the atlas subdirectory is seen first by the linker when she wants the optimised libraries, I suppose. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
