[Rd] looks in liblapack.a not liblapack.so

[Martyn Plummer]

On Mon, 2005-09-19 at 17:10 +0200, Peter Dalgaard wrote:
> Martyn Plummer <plummer at iarc.fr> writes:
> 
> > > The 'recompile with -fPIC' is bullsh*t.  The problem is that is is looking
> > > in /usr/lib64/liblapack.a rather than /usr/lib64/liblapack.so.3 both of which
> > > exist.  Some searching for this error message on Google shows a lot of
> > > questions about this problem but no solution that I found other than
> > > 
> > >     rm /usr/lib64/liblapack.a
> > > 
> > > which I don't consider a solution.  It will link with the .so as the bottom
> > > of the script shows
> ....
> > You would need to modify the LDFLAGS and CPPFLAGS environment variables,
> > as these default to -L/usr/local/lib and -I/usr/local/include
> > respectively.  See Appendix B.3.3 of the R Installation and
> > Administration manual, which gives a warning about 64-bit systems.
> > 
> > You can also use the --with-readline configure flag to specify the exact
> > location of the readline library you wish to use.
> 
> How did _readline_ get into this?

I meant --with-lapack.  My fingers have their very own autocomplete
feature, which is a little buggy.  

> As a curiosity, I tried looking at what Fedora Core 4 does with this.
> So I looked for liblapack.a with locate, and it found one in /usr/lib
> (on a 32bit system). Then I went to have a closer look at the library
> and it turned out not to be there -- apparently the recent update to
> lapack had wiped it out, but the locate database was not yet
> rebuilt...

Fedora have just split off a separate lapack-devel package containing
the static library and the symlink liblapack.so.  (Mandrake/Mandriva has
been doing this for some time. I don't know about SuSE).  The up2date
service will recognize that it needs to update lapack, but I guess that
it won't install lapack-devel, as it doesn't know you need it.

It might have been better to do this in the next release, rather than as
an update to FC4, but there you go. Better install lapack-devel
manually.

> This sort of suggests to me that removing the .a file might actually
> be a sensible thing to do on SuSE as well. 

M.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
This message and its attachments are strictly confidential. ...{{dropped}}