https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=861081
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=861081#c5
Richard Biener changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|RESOLVED |REOPENED
CC| |lnt-sysadmin@lists.lrz.de,
| |scorot@free.fr
Resolution|INVALID |
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener 2014-02-12 11:38:38 UTC ---
Ok, thanks for the hint. It seems that we inherited that "alternative" from
Debian (update-alternatives comes from the dpkg package):
# ls -l /etc/alternatives/lib*
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 27 Dec 11 13:10 /etc/alternatives/libblas.so.3 ->
/usr/lib64/libblas.so.3.4.2
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 29 Dec 11 13:10 /etc/alternatives/liblapack.so.3 ->
/usr/lib64/liblapack.so.3.4.2
It seems somebody added update-alternatives support in this awkward way
to lapack
Sun Jan 13 00:04:56 UTC 2013 - scorot@free.fr
- add update-alternative support to allow user to easily switch
between several blas and lapack libraries
and then the bug would be that it get's installed as default on update
%post -n libblas3
%_sbindir/update-alternatives --install \
%{_libdir}/libblas.so.3 libblas.so.3 %{_libdir}/libblas.so.%{version} 50
/sbin/ldconfig
That is, for $1 = 2 (update) the above is wrong? (I'm not familiar
with update-alternatives)
I still do not approve to the design from Debian.
Added CCs for people that created the mess in the first place and reopening
for now.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.