Comment # 10 on bug 1223783 from Atri Bhattacharya

(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #8)
> 
> 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.