On Fri, 2012-02-10 at 10:52 +0100, marco atzeri wrote: > On 2/10/2012 10:11 AM, Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote: > >> For what I saw they have the tendency to make their own version of any > >> lib that does not fit on their exact expectation, for the same reason > >> they do not consider libtool and have a very unusual build. > > > > Bundling libs is usually a bad idea, and as Debian, Fedora, and Gentoo > > all seem to use the system lapack, I'd suggest to do so as well (as done > > in Ports). > > the request was a bit strong > https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-devel/2011-November/062565.html > > It seems R is assuming math for NaN is a must. > > I agree that bundling libs is usually a bad idea, and that the normal > solution is to solve the problem with upstream libs. But it seems > that the math guys have less cross-cooperation skill than I usually > expect by open source teams. > > Also netlib (blas/Lapack) have a peculiar development method....
I'm a bit confused from that thread. Is this a Cygwin-specific problem in our lapack package or do they just insist on using their own (modified) blas/lapack? As for their "request", experience has made me very skeptical (if not downright cynical) of upstreams mixing in to downstream packaging issues, *particularly* when it comes to Cygwin. That being said, if their blas/lapack is a must, then I won't object. The other issues I raised must definitely be fixed though, as they are already in Ports. Yaakov
