https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=861081 https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=861081#c5 Richard Biener <rguenther@suse.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|RESOLVED |REOPENED CC| |lnt-sysadmin@lists.lrz.de, | |scorot@free.fr Resolution|INVALID | --- Comment #5 from Richard Biener <rguenther@suse.com> 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.