Hi,
On Mon, Dec 09, 2013 at 06:16:41PM +0100, Gert Wollny wrote:
> here the configure script claims that f2c is added anyway:
>
> > [AC_MSG_RESULT(not found, trying to use -lf2c anyway.)]
>
> but then it does this (and the patch doesn't touch that line):
>
> > LDFLAGS="${LDFLAGS}"
>
> which should read (just like the in the BLAS test below)
>
> LDFLAGS="${LDFLAGS} -lf2c"
I tested the proposed "ugly_fix.patch" which leads to the following
build log snippets:
...
checking for gmp.h... yes
checking for f77_alloc_ in -lf2c... no
checking for f77_alloc in -lf2c... no
checking for F77_ALLOC_ in -lf2c... no
checking for F77_ALLOC in -lf2c... no
checking for f_open in -lf2c... yes
checking for daxpy_ in -lblas... yes
checking for dlarnv_ in -llapack... yes
...
...
Use internal F2C -- no
...
...
/bin/bash ../libtool --tag=CC --mode=link gcc -g -O2 -fstack-protector
--param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -Wformat -Werror=format-security
-I/usr/include/libxml2 -Wl,-z,relro -lgmp -lblas -llapack -larpack -lglpk - o
libplfit.la error.lo gss.lo kolmogorov.lo lbfgs.lo options.lo plfit.lo zeta.lo
-larpack -llapack -lblas -lf2c
...
...
dpkg-shlibdeps: warning: package could avoid a useless dependency if
debian/libigraph0/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libigraph.so.0.0.0 was not linked
against libf2c.so.2 (it uses none of the library's symbols)
...
Perhaps I missunderstood the whole problem of this bug report.
Are there any test cases to run to verify the correctness of the
package?
Kind regards
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
