From octave-sources-request at bevo dot che dot wisc dot edu  Fri May 31 10:40:10 2002
Subject: Re: Replacing LINPACK with LAPACK
From: David Bateman<David dot Bateman at crm dot mot dot com>
To: "Steven G. Johnson"<stevenj at alum dot mit dot edu>
Cc: David Bateman<David dot Bateman at motorola dot com>,    <octave-sources@bevo.che.wisc.edu>, <mazet@crm.mot.com>
Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 03:03:15 -0500

According to Steven G. Johnson <stevenj at ab-initio dot mit dot edu> (on 05/30/02):
> On Thu, 30 May 2002, David Bateman wrote:
> > The change to configure.in adds the flag "-without-linpack" that
> > forces the use of the code in my patch. The code in my patch is
> > entirely inactive without this compile flag, though I imagine that
> > this behaviour should eventually be changed.
> 
> If you're going to change it to use LAPACK instead of LINPACK (which I
> heartily approve...I didn't realize that Octave still used any LINPACK,
> since it already links to LAPACK), I think you should just delete the old
> code.  What's the point of leaving it as an option?
> 

Yup, Octave links to LINPACK in quite a few places, I just removed the
most glaring one.

As for removing it entirely, hey my patch is still in a testing phase,
and giving the option of entirely disabling the a patch is a reasonable
approach during testing. If no one finds any problems with it then it
could be made the default option and eventually the linpack code removed.
At least thats how I see the life of a patch, particular from an unknown
source like me :-) (at least to the Octave people).

If you want me to entirely remove the linpack code this is easy enough
and would in fact make my patch much neater. The choice is up to who
decides (if they decide) to commit my patch to the CVS tree.

Regards
David