From tcallawa at redhat.com  Thu Sep 29 01:25:34 2005
From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom 'spot' Callaway)
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 18:25:34 -0500
Subject: [Rd] looks in liblapack.a not liblapack.so
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0509221034170.15750@gannet.stats>
References: <mailman.9.1126951201.11292.r-devel@r-project.org>
	<20050917221902.GA10806@stat.umn.edu> <1127119440.3624.5.camel@seurat>
	<x23bo15c13.fsf@turmalin.kubism.ku.dk>
	<1127144443.18426.14.camel@seurat>
	<dgpari$a96$1@sea.gmane.org> <x2mzm5lbtx.fsf@turmalin.kubism.ku.dk>
	<Pine.LNX.4.61.0509221034170.15750@gannet.stats>
Message-ID: <1127949934.5391.6.camel@localhost.localdomain>

On Thu, 2005-09-22 at 10:36 +0100, Prof Brian Ripley wrote:

> Probably because it is discussed in the R-admin manual as having 
> previously appeared in Debian and being traced to an erroneous patch to 
> the Lapack 3.0 sources.

You wouldn't happen to have more specific details on this, would you? :)

I know there is a fair amount of cruft in the Fedora lapack package, and
I'd like to clean it out, but I want to make sure I don't remove any
legitimate bug-fixes in the process.

(See: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=169399 for
some semi-related discussion of lapack and its patching)

Thanks,

~spot
-- 
Tom "spot" Callaway: Red Hat Senior Sales Engineer || GPG ID: 93054260
Fedora Extras Steering Committee Member (RPM Standards and Practices)
Aurora Linux Project Leader: http://auroralinux.org
Lemurs, llamas, and sparcs, oh my!



[Rd] looks in liblapack.a not liblapack.so
Tom 'spot' Callaway