lapack 3.0

Gerrit P. Haase
Wed Jun 29 22:09:00 GMT 2005

James R. Phillips wrote:

> --- Christopher Faylor  wrote:
>>FWIW, I don't think we want to start a precedent of official cygwin releases
>>installing things in /usr/local.
> The intent of the packaging design is that the official cygwin binary release
> would _not_ install anything in /usr/local.  However, with installation of the
> source package, it would be possible to build the locally optimized atlas
> libraries.  These would be compiled from source and installed by a local
> administrator.  That being the case, the preferred location would be
> /usr/local, per fhs guidelines.
> The binary release, as initially designed, would install link libraries in
> /usr/lib and dlls in /usr/bin.  However, locating the dlls in /usr/bin is
> problematic, because they become impossible to override with path manipulations
> for binaries living in /usr/bin.  So this part of the design needs to be
> revised.  After thinking about it, I don't think use of the /opt tree makes
> that much sense; probably the easiest modification is to create a
> /usr/bin/lapack subdirectory for the nonoptimized libraries to live in, and add
> it to the back of the path in an init.d script.  This is what I am leaning towards.

No subdirectories below /usr/bin, please.

To be honest, I cannot follow the discussion.  Why is it not possible to
put the DLLs into /usr/bin?  Is there another official package which
includes the same libraries?


More information about the Cygwin-apps mailing list