On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 11:58:33PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote: > > No comment on the transition issues, but I hope you're fixing these l10n > > issues by removing all of the idiotic debconf templates *completely* from > > the package. No one needs a library package popping up a high-priority > > debconf note to read the contents of /proc/cpuinfo to them, and my gorge > > rises every time I see one of these debconf notes from the atlas family of > > packages.
> I disagree somewhat ... please make the package fail to build in these > cases. afaiu the blas libraries are optimized libs which can be > replaced by refblas and lapack. Use these, and only include blas on > architectures where these libs do work. This isn't the package that has the gratuitous debconf notes informing users that there were testsuite failures (which are also evil). This package instead outputs gratuitous debconf notes if you install a package variant which is optimized for a subarch on a system that doesn't have a compatible CPU. Yuck. As for the debconf notes about testsuite failures, as near as I can tell the only remaining failures on x86 are bugs in either the testsuite, or in the toolchain used to build the testsuite. Neither is a very good reason to accost end users with this information, nor is it a very good reason to make the package fail to build if the real problem is that the testsuite itself is unreliable. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
