![](https://seccdn.libravatar.org/avatar/a895f78a81a109471893519443e4d933.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1223783
https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1223783#c10
--- Comment #10 from Atri Bhattacharya
I think the best is to check SLE15 SP6 or simply what's in Leap 15.5 or 15.6 (I suppose we don't have any newer version in Backports). Note that on SLE15 lapack is built against the SLE-15:Update tree (thus against GA), but this shouldn't make a difference with respect to the ABI.
OK, good to know. I will be testing SLE:15-SP6 packages later as part of a sub-project. (In reply to Egbert Eich from comment #9)
@Atri: Indeed, Leap 15.5 / 15.6 have the same Lapack package as SLE. Moreover, at present, there is only one code stream of Lapack on Leap/SLE 15, this means that the version of Lapack is the same across all supported Leap/SLE versions.
OK, that helps reduce the testing needed, thanks.
As for baselibs.conf, you should be able to keep the existing one in Lapack as it appears to be sufficiently generic.
Actually, the baselibs.conf were not correct and led to 0-byte /usr/lib/libFOO.so.X files in the -32bit shared lib packages. This is discussed in more detail in bug 1207563. Basically this rendered the -32bit lib packages unusable. This is also fixed in my home branch by ensuring update-alternatives installs the right links (suffixed with _32bit to not conflict with non-biarch shared libs). Hope that clarifies the baselibs situation. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.