Package: libatlas3gf-base Version: 3.8.3-28 # fakeroot debian/rules custom [...] ============================================== make -C TexDoc atlas_contrib.pdf atlas_devel.pdf atlas_install.pdf cblasqref.pdf f77blasqref.pdf lapackqref.pdf make[2]: Entering directory `/usr/local/src/atlas/atlas-3.8.3/TexDoc' make[2]: `atlas_contrib.pdf' is up to date. make[2]: `atlas_devel.pdf' is up to date. make[2]: `atlas_install.pdf' is up to date. ps2pdf14 cblasqref_pdf.ps cblasqref.pdf make[2]: ps2pdf14: Command not found make[2]: *** [cblasqref.pdf] Error 127 make[2]: Leaving directory `/usr/local/src/atlas/atlas-3.8.3/TexDoc' make[1]: *** [build-arch-stamp] Error 2 make[1]: Leaving directory `/usr/local/src/atlas/atlas-3.8.3' make: *** [custom-stamp] Error 2
ps2pdf14 is in the ghostscript package. ghostscript is listed in the Build-Depends but not in the README.Debian.gz please either: 1. update the README.Debian.gz so that it adds ghostscript: All dependencies can be installed with the following command: # aptitude install build-essential dpkg-dev cdbs devscripts gfortran \ liblapack-dev liblapack-pic texlive-latex-base ghostscript (also remove the commas from the second line so that it actually runs) OR 2. provide a 'custom-nodocs' make target so that it is possible to build just the libs without requiring either texlive-latex-base or ghostscript to be installed. is there any reason why the docs would need to be rebuilt due to CPU optimisations of the libs? BTW, I noticed while it was compiling that make was running with '-j 1' - is that optimal when building on a 4 or 8 core machine? i guess it's necessary when it's running benchmarks to figure out the compile-time options, but is it necessary when compiling the libraries? thanks, craig -- craig sanders <c...@taz.net.au> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org