Bug#328732: [Pkg-octave-devel] Bug#328732: please update octave2.1-headers's dependencies

Rafael Laboissiere rafael at debian.org
Sat Sep 17 12:55:28 UTC 2005


[Cc: to Josselin Muette, maintainer of the libhdf5 packages.]

* Dirk Eddelbuettel <edd at debian.org> [2005-09-16 22:07]:

> On 17 September 2005 at 04:37, Rafael Laboissiere wrote:
> | Thanks for spotting this problem.  Besides the gfortran vs g77
> | incompatibility, I see other dependencies that can also cause problems:
> | 
> |     refblas3-dev | atlas3-base-dev
> |     lapack3-dev | atlas3-base-dev
> |     libhdf5-serial-dev
> | 
> | The first two are problematic because of the alternation.  If Octave is
> | build with, say, refblas3-dev then mkoctfile will fail if the system
> | contains only atlas3-base-dev, even though octave2.1-headears could be
> | happily installed.
> 
> No, as they all provide the virtual package "libblas.so.3" that the Depends:
> is really on, as per the shlibs files.  (Unless Camm changed that
> recently...)

Yes, this seems to be the current situation.  Actually, the packages in
the alternations are not incompatible, much to the contrary, they all
provide libblas-3.so and liblabpack-3.so through the alternatives
mechanism.  In this case, my rant above is moot.

Should I also add to the Build-Depends the virtual packages libblas-3.so
and liblapack-3.so as in octave2.1:

    lapack3-dev | atlas3-base-dev | liblapack-3.so
    refblas3-dev | atlas3-base-dev | libblas-3.so
    
Another question: octave2.1-headers has also currently the following
binary dependency:

    libhdf5-serial-dev | libhdf5-lam-dev | libhdf5-mpich-dev

These packages conflict with each other and this is a potential source of
problems.  I do not know whether these packages are binary incompatible or
not [hence the Cc: to Josselin.]

> | I hope the other members of the Debian Octave Group will comment on this.
> 
> Sure thing. :)

Well, the other members are quite silent since this group has been
created. For now, the number of active developers is not significantly
greater than 1 (p-level < 0.0001 :-).

-- 
Rafael




More information about the Pkg-octave-devel mailing list