--- Charles Wilson wrote:
> As I stated in my earlier message, I've no objections to /usr/lib/lapack
> -- you're the maintainer. However, there are a few nits:
>
> (1) aren't there some header files that need to be packaged, as well?
Actually, no. lapack and blas are fortran77 libraries, an
--- Charles Wilson wrote:
> From the original post where I raised the issue:
> http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2003-04/msg00305.html
>
>
> Basically, a package to be installed under /opt creates an entire tree:
> /opt//bin
Thanks for the info.
> >
> However, I have no objections if you
James R. Phillips wrote:
--- Corinna Vinschen wrote:
It would help to keep everything in one place. As I said, I'm also
ok with using /usr/lib/lapack, but using /opt here looks neater to me.
Um, since you give me the option of keeping it as is, I'm going to do that. I
need to press on to get
James R. Phillips wrote:
Are there any other official packages that install to /opt? I don't have an
/opt at all in my cygwin directory tree. I am reluctant to create a new
top-level directory just for part of one package.
Not yet. IIRC, the existence of /opt has gotten the go-ahead approval
--- Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>
> It would help to keep everything in one place. As I said, I'm also
> ok with using /usr/lib/lapack, but using /opt here looks neater to me.
>
>
Um, since you give me the option of keeping it as is, I'm going to do that. I
need to press on to getting octave p
On Jun 30 05:40, James R. Phillips wrote:
> --- Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > I'd opt for /opt (sorry for the pun). Bigger and more complex packages
> > are better served by getting their own /opt subdir in the long run.
> > Charles is asking for /opt for a while now anyway. Perhaps the lapack
> >
--- Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>
> I'd opt for /opt (sorry for the pun). Bigger and more complex packages
> are better served by getting their own /opt subdir in the long run.
> Charles is asking for /opt for a while now anyway. Perhaps the lapack
> package would be a good start.
>
Please look
On Jun 29 22:40, James R. Phillips wrote:
> --- Charles Wilson wrote:
> > FWIW, I think the /opt tree is PRECISELY the right thing to do with
> > regards to the un-optimized lapack DLLs. With PATH manipulations,
> > binaries like octave.exe can find the "appropriate" lapack DLLs --
> > unoptim
--- Charles Wilson wrote:
> FWIW, I think the /opt tree is PRECISELY the right thing to do with
> regards to the un-optimized lapack DLLs. With PATH manipulations,
> binaries like octave.exe can find the "appropriate" lapack DLLs --
> unoptimized if /opt/lapack/bin is the only dir in PATH c
Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Thu, Jun 30, 2005 at 12:09:03AM +0200, Gerrit P. Haase wrote:
No subdirectories below /usr/bin, please.
Right. This memo apparently didn't go out to the ncurses and opengl
maintainers.
I fixed that months ago. ncurses test programs now install into
/usr/lib/
On Thu, Jun 30, 2005 at 12:09:03AM +0200, Gerrit P. Haase wrote:
>No subdirectories below /usr/bin, please.
Right. This memo apparently didn't go out to the ncurses and opengl
maintainers.
cgf
11 matches
Mail list logo
