I hadn't considered using internal versions of Blas and lapack.
If this fixes the graphing races I am seeing using in-ports versions
(hacked to build using gfortran), then I would actually favor this. These
libs are unlikely to need regular patching.
What do other people think?
On Nov 26, 2011 7:46 AM, <j...@bitminer.ca> wrote:
>
> >and also using gnuplot from octave failed completely
>
> I have a port that builds Octave 3.2.4 on OpenBSD 4.9, and runs gnuplot,
> or at least sombrero works...
>
> Email me if you want a copy.
>
> It "features"
>
> MODGCC4_LANGS += c++ fortran
> ...
> CONFIGURE_ARGS= ${CONFIGURE_SHARED} \
> --with-fftw \
> --without-blas --without-lapack \
> --without-hdf5
>
> that is, it builds with gfortan and uses the internal copies of blas and
> lapack, not the packages. (The task of validating blas and lapack with
> gfortran for all uses in ports is beyond my abilities. )
>
> I also patched the regressions to avoid specific test cases with infinite
> loops caused by bugs in precision routines as mentioned in the upstream
> bug report. The bug doesn't seem to affect most of the test cases.
>
> The key advantage is that octave 3.2.x is vastly quicker than anything
> earlier. 10x easily on some array stuff (FDTD calculations).
>
>
> --John
>
>
>
>
