Re: lapack 3.0 (OpenGL and ncurses maintainers please take note)

[Corinna Vinschen <corinna-cygwin at cygwin dot com>]

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
> > package would be a good start.
> > 
> 
> Please look over the directory structure of the trial binary package at
> 
> ftp://antiskid.homelinux.net/pub/lapack
> 
> It doesn't seem all that complex to me, but if it passes the "/opt complex"
> threshold for you, please advise how package subtrees would best be
> reallocated.  I.E. should /opt have its own share/doc subtree, etc.

The /usr/lib/lapack packaging is fine with me, I had just the idea
that your own /opt/lapack dir could help with the local optimized
stuff.  For instance consider

  /opt/lapack/default/bin	<- Contains the non-opimized DLLs
  /opt/lapack/bin		<- is empty

Now the build instruction for the optimized build are so that the
optimized stuff will be installed to /opt/lapack/bin and your
/etc/profile.d/lapack.(c)sh file tests roughly like this:

  if [ -f /opt/lapack/bin/cyglapack.dll ]
  then
    PATH=$PATH:/opt/lapack/bin
  else
    PATH=$PATH:/opt/lapack/default/bin
  fi

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.


Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader          mailto:cygwin@cygwin.com
Red Hat, Inc.