On Sat, Jul 05, 2008 at 03:02:16PM +0100, Chris Walker wrote: > This closure mail concerns me - in fact it sounds like the > solution is worse than the original bug. You claim that testsuite > failures are not bugs in the library - which is perfectly possible - > but it isn't clear to me that this implies that I would still get the > correct answer.
I don't like it either, but given the state that: 1) users have not seen any real problems on applications depending on lapack (apart from the alarming debconf notice[1]) 2) the maintainer is effectively inactive nowadays 3) the porters of architectures affected don't see it as a important problem 4) ubuntu has been happy to apply the same change earlier 5) and finally, removing lapack from the affected architectures is not a option due the long list of depending applications, which users seem happy using.. So, unless someone takes a more active stance at maintaining lapack on ports (you?), this is the state where lapack will have to stand. Riku [1] these warning banners have been shown on various architectures since 2002. -- "rm -rf" only sounds scary if you don't have backups
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
