From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org)
	by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <gentoo-science+bounces-1109-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>)
	id 1OTt0j-0007NV-F1
	for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 30 Jun 2010 08:51:13 +0000
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 91EDFE07E1;
	Wed, 30 Jun 2010 08:51:05 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mxi2.callplus.net.nz (mx194.callplus.net.nz [202.180.66.194])
	by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02652E07E1
	for <gentoo-science@lists.gentoo.org>; Wed, 30 Jun 2010 08:51:04 +0000 (UTC)
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AjcFABaiKkx8xQFN/2dsb2JhbACTIow4cr9jhSQEiB8
Received: from 124-197-1-77.callplus.net.nz (HELO vrooom.localnet) ([124.197.1.77])
  by ismtp02.callplus.net.nz with ESMTP; 30 Jun 2010 20:51:03 +1200
From: =?iso-8859-1?q?Fran=E7ois_Bissey?= <f.r.bissey@massey.ac.nz>
To: gentoo-science@lists.gentoo.org
Subject: Re: [gentoo-science] sage -> numpy -> lapack
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2010 20:51:03 +1200
User-Agent: KMail/1.13.3 (Linux/2.6.32-gentoo-r7; KDE/4.4.4; i686; ; )
References: <4C2AFBD5.4080701@gmx.de>
In-Reply-To: <4C2AFBD5.4080701@gmx.de>
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-science@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-science+help@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-science+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-science+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-science.gentoo.org>
X-BeenThere: gentoo-science@lists.gentoo.org
Reply-to: gentoo-science@lists.gentoo.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
  charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <201006302051.03863.f.r.bissey@massey.ac.nz>
X-Archives-Salt: 714957b0-b370-4b46-ad42-39254c039e60
X-Archives-Hash: d86d0778311249cde6f4bf8f73686e41

> Hi,
> 
> The way that sage depends on lapack and numpy is broken at the moment.
> Can somebody look at bug 320669 ?
> At least here on x86 it is not possible to get a working sage at the
> moment. Let me know if there is anything I can test or do.
> 
this is a bit more subtle than that Thomas. I have 2 x86 machines,
one with problems and one without. Christopher doesn't have problems
on his x86 machine either. 
Why is this bug not affecting amd64?

Francois