Robert Dodier writes:
> On 5/6/07, Vadim V. Zhytnikov <vvzhy at mail.ru> wrote:
>
>> I strongly dislike current situation.
>
> Well, I'm certainly not happy about it either.
>
>>> The only drawback I see is that would increase the size of the
>>> binary package by some megabytes.
>> Is it really a lot? These files can be packaged in separate .rpm
>> and .deb subpackage and or as an extra option in Windows Installer.
>> I suggest to introduce extra configure option which will control
>> whether lapack will be compiled or not.
>
> The main problem, I think, is that a lot of people are still using
> dialups, so just to obtain the package is a problem even if there
> is plenty of room on the disk. A separate rpm or installer helps
> somewhat by reducing the size of the largest blob that needs to
> be downloaded.
>
But optional compilation and separate subpackages
address this very problem. Even for Windows
where we have now one monolithic installer
it is possible to package compiled lapack in
separate add-on installer.
--
Vadim V. Zhytnikov
<vvzhy at mail.ru>
<vvzhy at netorn.ru>